United States Office of Air Quality EMB Report No. 86-MIN-02A
Environmental Protection Planning and Standards March 1988
Agency Research Triangle Park NC 27711
Air
Municipal Waste Combustion
Multipollutant Study
Summary Report
Signal Environmental Systems, Inc.
North Andover RESCO
North Andover, Massachusetts
-------
DCN: 87-222-124-15-03 EMB Report No. 86-MIN-02A
SUMMARY REPORT
FOR
CDD/CDF, METALS AND PARTICULATE
UNCONTROLLED AND CONTROLLED EMISSIONS
SIGNAL ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS, INC.
NORTH ANDOVER RESCO
NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS
ESED PROJECT NO. 86/19
EPA CONTRACT NO. 68-02-4338
WORK ASSIGNMENT 15
Prepared for:
Clyde E. Riley, Task Manager
Emissions Measurement Branch
Emission Standards and Engineering Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Prepared by:
Carol L. Anderson
Ted S. White
Michael A. Vancil
Radian Corporation
Progress Center
P.O. Box 13000
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27709
March 1988
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Emission
Standards and Engineering Division of the Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA, and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names or
commercial products is not intended to constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use. Copies of
this report are available through the Library
Services Office (MD-55), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC
27711.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
1.2 Objectives
1.3 Brief Process Operation and Description .
1.4 Emissions Measurement Program
1.4.1 Test Matrix
1.4.2 Sampling Locations
1.4.3 Sampling
1.4.4 Laboratory Analysis
1.5 Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
1.6 Description of Report Sections
2.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS
2.1 Comparison of Inlet and Outlet CDD/CDF Results. .
2.1.1 CDD/CDF Emissions Results
2.1.2 ESP Control Efficiency of CDD/CDF
2.1.3 CDD/CDF ESP Ash and Total Ash Discharge
Results
2.1.4 CDD/CDF Analyte-to-Particulate Ratios. . .
2.1.5 2378-TCDD Toxic Equivalency
2.1.6 Isomer Distributions
2.2 Total Organic Chloride (TOCL) Results for the
Controlled Flue Gas
2.3 Particulate Results
2.4 Metals Emissions Results for North Andover RESCO.
2.4.1 Flue Gas Metals Results
2.4.2 ESP Ash Metals Results
3.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION
3.1 Process Description
3.2 Air Pollution Control System
3.3 Evaluation of Incinerator Operation During Testing.
3.3.1 Fixed Gases Evaluation (0 CO, C02> and THC
3.3.2 Flue Gas and Steam Temperature Evaluation. .
3.3.3 Load and Opacity Evaluation
3.3.4 Primary Air Evaluation
4.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
4.1 CDD/CDF Sampling and Analysis
4.2 TOCL Sampling and Analysis
4.3 Flue Gas Particulate Sampling and Analysis.
4.4 Metals Sampling and Analysis
4.5 CEM Sampling and Analysis
4.6 ESP Ash and Total Ash Discharge Sampling. .
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC)
5.1 Equipment and Sampling Preparations
5.2 Sampling Operations
5.3 Sample Recovery
5.4 Sample Analysis 5-4
5.5 Data Reduction 5-4
6.0 REFERENCES 6-1
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures Page
1-1 North Andover RESCO Process Line with Sampling
Locations 1-4
2-1 Comparison of CDD Isomer Distributions at North Andover
RESCO 2-20
2-2 Comparison of CDF Isomer Distributions at North Andover
RESCO 2-21
3-1 North Andover RESCO Process Line 3-2
3-2 Variability of Fixed Gas Concentrations for Runs 1-4 at
North Andover RESCO 3-9
3-3 Variability of Fixed Gas Concentrations for Runs 5, 7, 8,
and 9 and at North Andover RESCO 3-10
3-4 Carbon Monoxide Concentration History - Run 1 for
North Andover RESCO 3-11
3-5 Carbon Monoxide Concentration History - Run 2 for
North Andover RESCO 3-12
3-6 Carbon Monoxide Concentration History - Run 3 for
North Andover RESCO 3-13
3-7 Carbon Monoxide Concentration History - Run 4 for
North Andover RESCO 3-14
3-8 Carbon Monoxide Concentration History - Run 5 for
North Andover RESCO 3-15
3-9 Carbon Monoxide Concentration History - Run 7 for
North Andover RESCO 3-16
3-10 Carbon Monoxide Concentration History - Run 8 for
North Andover RESCO 3-17
3-11 Carbon Monoxide Concentration History - Run 9 for
North Andover RESCO 3-18
3-12 Variability of Various Flue Gas and Steam Temperatures for
Runs 1-4 at North Andover RESCO 3-19
3-13 Variability of Various Flue Gas and Steam Temperatures for
Runs 5, 7, 8 and 9 at North Andover RESCO 3-20
no.
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures
3-14 Variability of Opacity, Steam Load, and Grapple Count for
Runs 1-4 at North Andover RESCO 3-22
3-15 Variability of Opacity, Steam Load, and Grapple Count for
Runs 5, 7, 8, and 9 at North Andover RESCO 3-23
3-16 Variability of Air Flow Rate for Runs 1-4 at North Andover
RESCO 3-24
3-17 Variability of Air Flow Rate for Runs 5, 7, 8, and 9 at
North Andover RESCO 3-25
IV
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1-1 Actual Test Matrix for North Andover RESCO 1-7
1-2 Summary of Sampling Log at the North Andover Facility,
July 8 to 16, 1986 1-10
1-3 Chlorinated Organic Compounds Analyzed for North Andover
Test Program 1-12
2-1 Summary of Average CDD/CDF Emissions for North Andover
RESCO 2-3
2-2 Uncontrolled CDD/CDF Emissions at North Andover RESCO
(Corrected to 12% CO-) 2-4
2-3 Controlled CDD/CDF Emissions at North Andover RESCO
(Corrected to 12% C02> 2-5
2-4 CDD/CDF Control Efficiencies for North Andover RESCO ... 2-6
2-5 CDD/CDF Results of the ESP Ash Analyses 2-8
2-6 CDD/CDF Results of the Total Ash Discharge Analyses. . . . 2-10
2-7 Ratio of Controlled CDD/CDF to Particulate Emissions ... 2-11
2-8 Flue Gas and Ash CDD/CDF Analyte-to-Particulate Ratios,
Averages for Runs 1-5 2-12
2-9 CDD/CDF Concentrations Expressed as 2378-TCDD Toxic
Equivalents 2-14
2-10 ESP Ash CDD/CDF Results Expressed as 2378-TCDD
Equivalents 2-15
2-11 Total Ash Discharge CDD/CDF Results Expressed as
2378-TCDD Equivalents 2-16
2-12 Uncontrolled and Controlled Isomer Distributions at
North Andover RESCO 2-17
2-13 CDD/CDF Isomer Distributions in the ESP Ash Samples. ... 2-18
2-14 CDD/CDF Distribution in the Total Ash Discharge
Samples 2-19
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2-15 Correlation of TOCL Results to CDD/CDF Results 2-23
2-16 Summary of Uncontrolled and Controlled Particulate
Emissions for North Andover RESCO 2-24
2-17 Summary of Controlled Particulate Emissions for North
Andover RESCO 2-26
2-18 Summary of EPA Specific Metals Emissions for North
Andover RESCO 2-28
2-19 Summary of ESP Ash Metals Results 2-30
3-1 North Andover Facility Structural Design Data 3-3
3-2 North Andover Facility Airflow Design Data 3-4
3-3 Average Process Data for North Andover Incinerator Tests,
July 9 through 16, 1986 3-7
3-4 Average Process Data for North Andover Incinerator Tests,
July 9 through 16, 1986 3-8
3-5 Average CEM Data for North Andover Tests, July 9 through
July 9 through 16, 1986 3-27
4-1 Summary of Sampling Methods and Analytical Procedures Used
During the North Andover RESCO Test Program. 4-2
5-1 Summary of Estimated and Achieved Precision, Accuracy,
and Completeness 5-2
5-2 Summary of Equipment Used in Performing Sampling 5-3
VI
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has published in
the Federal Register (July 7, 1987) an advanced notice for proposed rulemaking
which describes upcoming emissions standards development for new municipal
waste combustors (MWCs) under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act and for
existing MWCs under Section lll(d) of the Act. This Federal Register notice
culminates more than a year's work of development of the technical and
health-related documents which comprise EPA's Report to Congress on MWCs. The
Report to Congress was a joint effort involving the Offices of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Solid Waste (OSW), and Research and
Development (ORD).
The Emission Standards and Engineering Division (ESED) of OAQPS, through
its Industrial Studies Branch (ISB) and Emissions Measurement Branch (EMB), is
responsible for reviewing the existing air emissions data base and gathering
additional data where necessary. As a result of this review, several MWC
emission tests were performed and are in planning stages to support the
emissions standards development which is underway. Of particular importance
is a more complete data base on emerging air pollution control technologies
for MWCs.
The emissions that are being studied for the source category document are
the criteria pollutants--particulate matter (PM) , sulfur oxides (SO,-),
nitrogen oxides (NO ), carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrocarbons (THC); other acid
gases, such as HC1; chlorinated organics including chlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDD) and chlorinated dibenzofurans (CDF); and specific
metals including arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), mercury (Hg),
nickel (Ni), lead (Pb) and beryllium (Be).
1.1 BACKGROUND
Signal Environmental Systems, Inc., was required by the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (MDEQE) to conduct an emission
1-1
-------
program to measure the CDD/CDF emissions in the flue gas and the CDD/CDF
concentration in the process ash streams at the North Andover RESCO municipal
solid waste resource recovery facility in North Andover, Massachusetts.
Radian Corporation was contracted by Signal Environmental to perform that
program.
In order to provide additional data to evaluate the CDD/CDF and metals
removal effectiveness of emissions redaction systems, Signal Environmental and
EPA agreed to jointly sponsor an expanded program during the MDEQE-required
tests. Signal Environmental sponsored CDD/CDF and total organic chlorine
(TOCL) tests at the ESP outlet, and EPA sponsored CDD/CDF tests at the ESP
inlet, and metals and particulate testing at the ESP inlet and outlet
locations. Ash sampling was sponsored by Signal during the CDD/CDF tests
and by EPA during the metals test runs. Radian Corporation also performed the
expanded testing program.
This report summarizes the complete set of data collected during the
joint sampling program. The main objective of this report is to summarize and
analyze the data rather than present the testing details.
Separate test reports were prepared detailing the results of the EPA-
sponsored testing and the Signal Environmental-sponsored testing. The test
report for the EPA-sponsored testing can be obtained by contacting Clyde E.
Riley of EMB/EPA, Mail Drop 14, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
2
(919) 541-5242. The test report prepared for Signal Environmental can be
obtained by contacting Timothy Porter of Signal Environmental Systems,
Liberty Lane, Hampton, NH 03842, (603) 926-1337.
1.2 OBJECTIVES
The objective of the EPA-sponsored test program was to obtain CDD/CDF,
metals, and particulate data from a state-of-the art MWC controlled by an
electrostatic precipitator (ESP). The North Andover facility was selected by
EPA because the facility was a well-designed and operated mass-burn,
1-2
-------
waterwall, resource recovery system with a state-of-the-art ESP. The
EPA-sponsored test program was designed to obtain:
Uncontrolled flue gas CDD/CDF emission results that could be
compared with the Signal-sponsored CDD/CDF controlled results;
Data on uncontrolled and controlled flue gas particulate
concentrations and specific trace metals emission rates;
Data on the uncontrolled and controlled emission characteristics and
inter-relationships of the particulate matter, CDD/CDF, and trace
metals flue gas concentrations;
Trace metals results for the ESP flyash that was being generated
during the trace metal air emissions test program; and
Continuous emissions monitoring (GEM) information for oxygen, carbon
monoxide and carbon dioxide during the particulate/metals test
program.
The results from the North Andover Facility have been incorporated into the
data base for the comprehensive source category document, and will be used in
support of any future regulatory development which is undertaken for the MWC
source category.
1.3 BRIEF PROCESS OPERATION AND DESCRIPTION
Figure 1-1 presents a process diagram of the two identical combustor
systems at the North Andover facility. Unit No. 2 was tested during this
program. Unit No. 2 is a reciprocating grate, mass-burn type combustor with a
waterwall boiler that produces superheated steam. Unit No. 2 is designed to
burn 750 tons/day of municipal waste. The flue gas passes from the combustor
into the superheater, generator, and economizer sections before the
particulate emissions are controlled by an ESP.
1-3
-------
Secondary
Fan
ESP Inlet FluaQas
Sampling Location
SuperhMter
Qenei»lor
Economizer
ESP
/\
• — I
\
y
•«•
ESP Ash
Sampling Loctllon
ESP Out
Flat Qa
Sampling Lo
Total Ash Discharge
Sampling Location .
i^ 1 f ^^
VlbrMIng
Conv«yor
Total Ash
Discharge
Quench Tank
Figure 1-1. North Andover RESCO Process Line with Sampling
Locations
-------
The refuse is typical residential and commercial solid waste. No sorting
or shredding is performed prior to combustion. The refuse is brought to the
enclosed tipping area by truck and unloaded into the receiving pit. A
manually operated overhead crane is used to transfer the refuse from the
receiving pit to the combustor charging chute. A Martin inclined grate and
ash discharge system is used at the North Andover facility.
A more detailed description of the North Andover system is presented in
Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of this report. This description was prepared by Midwest
Research Institute (MRI). Combustor operating data recorded during the test
program are also summarized in Section 3.0. The operation of the ESP was
monitored during the test program. However, Signal Environmental Systems
considers the ESP operating data to be confidential and they are not included
in this report.
Analyses of the combustor operating data had two purposes: 1) to
evaluate the operation of the combustor, and 2) to correlate their operation
to the emissions results. Key operating parameters such as steam load,
superheater inlet gas temperature, oxygen at the economizer, and Radian's CEM
data for oxygen, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide were evaluated for
trends. The trends in operating parameters are discussed in Section 3.3 of
this report.
The emissions data and the observed trends in operating parameters were
reviewed to determine if there were any correlations between emissions and any
of the operating parameters. No apparent correlations were observed. A
statistical analysis was not performed to test for correlations.
Some tentative results were drawn from a review of the emissions data.
It appears that the ESP does not effectively control CDD/CDF emissions,
although it does effectively control particulate emissions. The CDD/CDF
control efficiencies obtained may be obscured by analytical uncertainties,
however. The uncontrolled and controlled flue gas emissions averaged
342 ng/dscm and 422 ng/dscm for total CDD/CDF at 12 percent CO.,
1-5
-------
respectively. The ESP also did not affect the CDD or CDF isomer distribution
in the flue gas. The ESP ash and total ash discharge contained 103 ng/g and
13.5 ng/g total CDD/CDF, respectively, on the average.
Particulate emissions were controlled by the ESP at an average control
efficiency of 99.46 percent. The control efficiencies for metals in the flue
gas were highest for total chromium and arsenic. Cadmium was collected less
efficiently, while nickel was collected least efficiently of the four metals
analyzed. A potential for nickel and chromium contamination from the
stainless steel nozzle exists when sampling flue gas streams containing HCl.
During this test program, to minimize this contamination, rinses of the
stainless steel nozzle were not included in the metals samples. The extent of
possible contamination was not quantified. A wide variety of metals was
detected in the ESP ash.
1.4 EMISSIONS MEASUREMENT PROGRAM
1.4.1 Test Matrix
The emissions measurement program at the North Andover facility was
conducted from July 8 to July 16, 1986. Table 1-1 presents the actual test
matrix that was used for the program and the organization that sponsored each
type of sample. Total organic chloride/particulate sampling at the ESP inlet
was scheduled for Runs 1-6, but had to be cancelled because of logistical
problems.
1.4.2 Sampling Locations
Flue gas sampling was conducted at two locations. The ESP outlet
sampling location was about 0.5 equivalent diameters (4.1 feet) upstream of
the ID fan. At this point, six ports were located horizontally across the
vertical square ducting and another small port, located about a foot
downstream, was used for the GEM probe.
1-6
-------
TABLE 1-1. ACTUAL TEST MATRIX FOR NORTH ANDOVER RESCOC
CDD/CDF
ESP
Run Inlet Outlet
1 -- Signal
2 EPAd Signal
3 EPA Signal
4 EPA Signal
5 EPA Signal
6 EPAd Signal
7
8
9
TOCL/PM Metals/PM
ESP ESP
Outlet Inlet Outlet
Signal-TOCL
EPA-PM
Signal-TOCL
EPA-PM
Signal-TOCL
EPA-PM
Signal-TOCL
EPA-PM
Signal-TOCL
EPA-PM
Signal-TOCL
EPA-PM
EPA EPA
EPA EPA
EPA EPA
Total
ESP Combined
Ash Ash
Signal Signal
Signal Signal
Signal Signal
Signal Signal
Signal Signal
Signal Signal
EPA
EPA
EPA
CEMsC
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
EPA
EPA
EPA
Dashes indicate that the sample was not collected. Also, Signal - Signal
Environmental Systems, Inc.
PM - particulate matter. TOCL - total organic chloride.
°Continuous emissions monitors were used to measure 0,., CO., CO and THC at the
ESP outlet.
Tlie ESP inlet CDD/CDF samples for Runs 2 and 6 were not analyzed because of
sampling and combustor problems that occurred during the runs.
1-7
-------
The ESP inlet sampling location was between the economizer and the ESP.
Eight ports were located across the top of the horizontal square duct about
0.8 equivalent duct diameters (6.5 feet) upstream of the expansion joint for
the entrance to the ESP.
The ESP ash was collected from a drag conveyor at an intermediate point
before mixing with the bottom ash. The total combined ash was collected as
the ash fell from a vibrating conveyor onto a belt conveyor prior to being
placed in the temporary storage area.
1.4.3 Sampling
Sampling for CDD/CDF in the flue gas was conducted according to the
December 1984 draft of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) and
EPA Environmental Standards Workshop protocol for sampling and analysis of
chlorinated organic compounds. The CDD/CDF sampling at the ESP inlet and ESP
outlet was conducted simultaneously. At the ESP outlet, the TOCL samples were
also collected according to the ASME/EPA protocol. The ASME/EPA protocol for
the TOCL train was modified to collect EPA Method 5 particulate samples along
with TOCL samples in one train.
Trace metals testing was conducted simultaneously at the ESP inlet and
ESP outlet during Runs 7, 8 and 9. Sampling followed EPA Alternate Method 12,
which allows for the determination of particulate loading concurrently with
lead and cadmium in the sampling train. The EPA Method 12 train has been
demonstrated specifically for lead and cadmium only. However, for purposes of
this study, the method was used as a screening analysis for the other metals
of interest. The method was also modified by using neutron activation (NAA)
as the analysis method rather than atomic absorption. However, NAA is not a
validated analytical method. The analytical results for arsenic, nickel,
cadmium, and total chromium are included in this report. The results for the
other metals are included in Appendix I of Reference 1.
Samples of the ESP ash and total combined ash for CDD/CDF analysis were
collected during the flue gas sampling time period. The ashes from the ESP,
1-8
-------
superheater, generator, and economizer sections and the boiler tubes were
combined with the bottom ash as they were transferred to the temporary storage
area to form the total combined ash discharge. The ash sampling scheme was
developed specifically for the North Andover RESCO facility based on the ASTM
3
protocol for coal sampling (a grab sampling technique).
Continuous emission monitoring (GEM) for oxygen (0_), carbon monoxide
(CO), carbon dioxide (C0_) and total hydrocarbons (THC) was conducted by
Radian at the ESP outlet sampling location during the entire test program.
The purpose of the continuous monitoring effort was to 1) observe fluctuations
in flue gas parameters, and 2) provide an indication of combustion conditions.
The GEM results were also used to adjust ESP outlet emissions data to a
12 percent CC- basis. For the ESP inlet emissions data, EPA Method 3 (Orsat
analysis) results were used.
Plant personnel collected the incinerator and ESP operating data. The
GEM data and the operating data were used to determine if the incinerator was
operating at normal conditions.
A summary of the sampling log for the test program is presented in
Table 1-2. The summary shows the samples collected and sampling times as well
as any problems that occurred.
1.4.4 Laboratory Analysis
The laboratory analyses were performed by three organizations. The
CDD/CDF analyses were performed entirely by Triangle Laboratories, Inc., in
Research Triangle Park, NC. The trace metals analyses were performed by the
Nuclear Energy Services of North Carolina State University in Raleigh, NC. The
particulate samples were weighed at the Radian/RTP Laboratory.
The CDD/CDF samples were analyzed by high resolution gas chromatography
and high resolution mass spectrometry (GC/MS). The congeners that are
reported are listed in Table 1-3. The total mono- through octa-chlorinated
homologues are reported, along with all the individual 2378-substituted
CDD/CDF isomers such as 2378-TCDD.
1-9
-------
TABLE 1-2. SUMMARY OF SAMPLING LOG AT THE NORTH ANDOVER FACILITY
July 8 to 16, 1986
DATE
RUN
SAMPLES
COLLECTED
SAMPLING'
PERIOD
NOTES
7/8/86
7/9/86
7/10/86
7/11/86
7/12/86
Controlled CDD/CDF
ESP ash, total
combined ash, CEMs,
controlled PM,
controlled TOCL
13:20 - 18:37
Uncontrolled and
controlled CDD/CDF,
ESP ash, total
combined ash, CEMs,
controlled PM,
controlled TOCL
Uncontrolled and
controlled CDD/CDF,
ESP ash, total
combined ash, CEMs,
controlled PM,
controlled TOCL
Uncontrolled and
controlled CDD/CDF,
ESP ash, total
combined ash, CEMs,
controlled PM,
controlled TOCL
Uncontrolled and
controlled CDD/CDF,
ESP ash, total
combined ash, CEMs,
controlled PM,
controlled TOCL
10:15 - 19:29
10:29 - 16:30
11:30 - 16:09
11:40 - 17:52
Uncontrolled CDD/CDF sampling
for Run 1 was cancelled because
the ESP inlet sampling locatioi
was not ready in time to test
concurrently with ESP outlet.
Port scrapings on the filter
invalidated controlled
particulate sample.
For the inlet CDD/CDF train,
three probe liners were used
and recovered. Two of the
liners were broken during port
changes.
No sampling or combustor
operating problems occurred.
Sampling time increased to 24C
minutes from 192 minutes. No
sampling or combustor
operating problems occurred.
Combustor developed a broken
grate bar during sampling.
Underfire air ports were
manually cleaned. Combustor
operation was determined by
Signal to be normal. The grat
bar was repaired overnight.
1-10
-------
TABLE 1-2. SUMMARY OF SAMPLING LOG AT THE NORTH ANDOVER FACILITY
July 8 to 16, 1986
(Continued)
DATE
RUN
SAMPLES
COLLECTED
SAMPLING
PERIOD
NOTES
7/13/86
7/14/86
7/15/86 8
7/16/86
Uncontrolled and
controlled CDD/CDF,
ESP ash, total
combined ash, CEMs,
controlled PM,
controlled TOCL
Uncontrolled
and controlled
metals and PM, ESP
ash, CEMs
Uncontrolled
and controlled
metals and PM, ESP
ash, CEMs
Uncontrolled
and controlled
metals and PM, ESP
ash, CEMs
12:40 - 20:46
14:20 - 20:00
9:30 - 13:50
9:38-14:06
The combustor was determined
by Signal not to be operating
at normal conditions. The
basis for this decision has not
been provided by Signal. Also,
the CDD/CDF samples were not
collected simultaneously at the
ESP inlet and ESP outlet.
Outlet probe liner broke at
the nozzle; liner changed.
No sampling or combustor
operating problems occurred.
No sampling or combustor
operating problems occurred.
The sampling period includes time for port changes and other breaks in
sampling.
1-11
-------
TABLE 1-3. CHLORINATED ORGANIC COMPOUNDS ANALYZED
FOR NORTH ANDOVER TEST PROGRAM
DIOXINS
Monochloro dibenzo-p-dioxin (MCDD)
Total dichlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxlns (DCDD)
Total Trichlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (TrCDD)
2,3,7,8 Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8 TCDD)
Total Tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (TCDD)
1,2,3,7,8 Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (1,2,3,7,8 PCDD)
Total Pentachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDD)
1,2,3,4,7,8 Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD)
1,2,3,6,7,8 Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD)
1,2,3,7,8,9 Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD)
Total Hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (HxCDD)
Total Heptachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (HpCDD)
Total Octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (OCDD)
FURANS
Monochloro dibenzofuran (MCDF)
Total dichlorinated dibenzofurans (DCDF)
Total Trichlorinated dibenzofurans (TrCDF)
2,3,7,8 Tetrachlorodibenzofurans (2,3,7,8 TCDF)
Total Tetrachlorinated dibenzofurans (TCDF)
1,2,3,7,8 Pentachlorodibenzofuran (1,2,3,7,8 PCDF)
2,3,4,7,8 Pentachlorodibenzofuran (2,3,4,7,8 PCDF)
Total Pentachlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDF)
1,2,3,4,7,8 Hexachlorodibenzofuran (1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF)
1,2,3,6,7,8 Hexachlorodibenzofuran (1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF)
1,2,3,7,8,9 Hexachlorodibenzofuran (1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF)
Total Hexachlorinated dibenzofurans (HxCDF)
Total Heptachlorinated dibenzofurans (HpCDF)
Total Octachlorinated dibenzofurans (OCDF)
1-12
-------
The trace metal samples were analyzed by neutron activation analysis
(NAA). With this method, the samples are exposed to neutrons causing them to
emit gamma rays which are counted and compared to standards for
quantification. NAA cannot be used for lead and beryllium because these
metals do not emit gamma rays. The flue gas trace metals results for arsenic,
cadmium, chromium and nickel are presented in this report. The NAA analytical
method is not a validated method, however, and the results should be used for
screening purposes only. The results of NAA analysis of the ESP ash are
presented in Section 2 of this report.
The particulate concentrations were determined by gravimetric analysis.
The appropriate portions of the sample train were dessicated, evaporated, and
weighed to determine the amount of particulate matter collected during
sampling.
1.5 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC)
A QA/QC program was established prior to testing at North Andover RESCO.
Completeness and data quality were emphasized during the test program, so
QA/QC provisions were incorporated into each sampling or analytical task. The
details of the QA/QC results are included in the emission test reports
(References 1 and 2).
All but two of the CDD/CDF analyses met the QA/QC criteria. The internal
standard recoveries for these two samples were outside the desired criteria,
but did not make the samples invalid. Field, laboratory, and method blanks
were also analyzed for CDD/CDF. They contained insignificant concentrations
of CDD/CDF.
The TOCL/Particulate analysis met the QA/QC criteria for all samples.
Blank analyses yielded results which would not affect the sample analyses.
Blank analyses for metals sampling revealed that no significant
contamination was caused by recovery and handling of the metals sampling
trains. The neutron activation analysis used for determining metals
1-13
-------
concentrations yielded less than 10 percent difference in the analysis of
three sets of duplicate samples. Analysis of metals reference standards
showed that 91 percent of the analyses were within tolerances established by
the National Bureau of Standards.
1.6 DESCRIPTION OF REPORT SECTIONS
The summary of results is presented in Section 2. The evaluation of the
incinerator and ESP operating data is included in Section 3. Summaries of the
sampling methods and QA/QC results are presented in Sections 4 and 5,
respectively.
1-14
-------
2.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Included in th'is section are the results of CDD/CDF, TOCL, particulates,
and metals sampling for both the uncontrolled and controlled flue gas streams
at North Andover RESCO. Also presented is a discussion of the results and an
explanation of data variability, where applicable. Combustor or ESP operating
abnormalities are analyzed in relation to pertinent data.
Where applicable, dual units (English and metric) are presented
side-by-side in each table. For results such as CDD/CDF concentrations,
only the most suitable units (ng/dscm in this case) are presented.
2.1 COMPARISON OF INLET AND OUTLET CDD/CDF RESULTS
CDD/CDF results for the uncontrolled and controlled flue gas, ESP ash,
and total ash discharge samples are presented and discussed in this section.
A total of five complete CDD/CDF sample sets were collected. However, only
the three uncontrolled flue gas samples which were most representative in
terms of sampling and combustor operating parameters were analyzed for
CDD/CDF. These samples were collected during Runs 3, 4 and 5. The sample
from Run 1 was not collected because the inlet sampling location was not
ready. The sample for Run 2 was not analyzed because the probe liner broke
three times; two of these breakages were during port changes. Since the
controlled and uncontrolled CDD/CDF samples were not collected
simultaneously during Run 6, the Run 6 sample was not analyzed. The
controlled results for Run 6 are not reported because the combustor was
determined by Signal to be operating at abnormal conditions.
In comparisons of CDD/CDF flue gas data for the uncontrolled versus
controlled streams, only Runs 3, 4 and 5 are presented. The concentrations
are normalized to 12% C02 to allow comparison to other data in the EPA MSW
data base.
2-1
-------
2.1.1 CDD/CDF Emissions Results
The uncontrolled and controlled CDD/CDF emissions results are
summarized along with average flue gas characteristics in Table 2-1. For the
uncontrolled flue gas, the average total CDDs were 169 ng/dscm at 12 percent
CO- and the average total CDFs were 173 ng/dscm at 12 percent CO,.. For the
controlled flue gas, the average total CDDs were 100 ng/dscm at 12% CO,, and
the average total CDFs were 323 ng/dscm at 12 percent CO..
Uncontrolled homologue and isomer-specific results for Runs 3, 4 and 5
are summarized in Table 2-2, and the controlled results for Runs 1-5 are
presented in Table 2-3. The data in these tables are normalized to 12 percent
C00. The average total uncontrolled CDD result was 169 ng/dscm at 12 percent
CO- and the average total uncontrolled CDF results was 173 ng/dscm at
12 percent C02. The average total controlled CDD result was 124 ng/dscm at
12 percent CO-, while the average total controlled CDF result was 336 ng/dscm
at 12 percent CO-.
2.1.2 ESP Control Efficiency of CDD/CDF
The control device efficiencies are calculated for the CDD/CDF results
for Runs 3, 4 and 5. The control efficiencies are calculated based on mass
rates to account for possible inleakage across the ESP. The control
efficiencies are calculated separately for each congener and are summarized
along with the flue gas concentrations in Table 2-4.
From the data in Table 2-4, it appears that the ESP was not effective at
controlling CDD/CDF emissions. The control efficiencies for the individual
homologues as well as for total CDD and CDF varied widely for the three
runs. The control efficiencies ranged from -151 percent to 63 percent for
total CDD, total CDF, and total CDD/CDF. For particulates, however, as
described later in Section 2.3, control efficiency averaged 99.46 percent.
2-2
-------
TABLE 2-1. SUMMARY OF AVERAGE CDD/CDF EMISSIONS FOR NORTH ANDOVER RESCO
S3
I
U)
Emission
Flue Gas Characteristics
Volume gas sampled (dscf)
Flow rate (dscfm)
Temperature (°F)
Percent moisture by volume
Percent Isoklnetic
CO (ppm by volume, dry)
CO (percent by volume, dry)
0. (percent by volume, dry)
Average opacity (percent)
Process operations
Steam load (103 Ibs/hr)
Dioxin Results
Total COD (ng/dscm)
Total CDD (corrected
to 12Z CO , ng/dscm)
Furan Results
Total CDF (ng/dscm)
Total CDF (corrected
to 12X CO , ng/dscm)
Dioxln/Furan Results
Total CDD-CDF (ng/dscm)
Total CDD-CDF (corrected
to 12X C02> ng/dscm)
Uncon-
trolled
75.9
84,600
580
13.1
100.1
NA
10.0
10.0
NA
280
336
'
161
193
441
528
Run 3
Con-
trolled
88.0
86,000
556
12.8
104.1
25.7
8.9
10.5
0.12
166
102
124
396
480
498
604
Run 4
Uncon-
trolled
97.0
87,500
584
12.9
99.0
NA
10.0
10.3
NA
56
67
129
155
185
222
Con-
trolled
106.5
85,400
567
12.6
101.5
45.2
9.6
10.7
0.12
166
59
74
166
210
225
284
Run 5
Uncon-
trolled
97.3
88,600
591
14.2
98.0
NA
9.9
10.1
NA
87
105
140
170
227
275
Con-
trolled
106.2
82,500
566
13.6
104.8
25.7
9.8
10.1
0.13
167
81
101
224
278
306
378
Average
Uncon-
trolled
90.1
86,900
585
13.4
99.0
NA
10.0
10.1
NA
141
169
143
173
284
342
Con-
trolled
100.2
84,600
563
13.0
103.5
32.2
9.4
10.4
0.12
166
81
100
262
323
343
422
'controlled values are averages of data taken over the sampling period from continuous emissions monitors. Uncontrolled
values were obtained using EPA Method 3 (Orsat analysis).
NA - parameter not monitored at the ESP inlet location.
-------
TABLE 2-2. UNCONTROLLED CDD/CDF EMISSIONS AT
NORTH ANDOVER RESCO
ISOMER
TOTAL CDD
FURANS
Mono-CDF
Di-CDF
Tri-CDF
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDD/CDF
b
Norm, ratio
CONCENTRATION
(ng/dscm, corrected to 12% C02)
Run 3 Run 4 Run 5 Average
DIOXINS
Mono-CDD
Di-CDD
Tri-CDD
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
a
[0.002]
4.23
21.9
3.75
31.2
2.05
63.5
2.70
6.60
3.04
85.9
69.1
41.8
[0.0004]
2.14
5.49
0.271
5.55
0.694
7.54
0.672
1.24
2.02
9.70
14.9
16.7
[0.0004]
1.93
6.68
0.522
7.97
0.908
11.6
1.10
1.63
[0.004]
18.7
23.8
29.7
0.00
2.77
11.4
1.51
14.9
1.22
27.6
1.49
3.16
1.69
38.1
35.9
29.4
336
1.38
26.6
73.4
11.4
35.6
2.15
4.13
12.7
4.58
1.56
[0.002]
6.66
9.64
2.84
66.9
105
3.22
25.9
57.4
9.02
27.0
1.93
3.53
9.18
2.93
1.01
0.057
3.86
7.99
1.97
0.140
13.2
62.1
11.7
34.2
2.40
4.40
13.3
4.29
2.47
[0.002]
6.11
12.4
3.34
169
1.58
21.9
64.3
10.7
32.3
2.16
4.02
11.7
3.93
1.68
0.019
5.54
10.0
2.71
193
528
1.20
155
222
1.20
170
275
1.21
173
342
Not detected. Detection limit given in brackets. Congeners
that were not detected were considered zero when summing
total CDD, CDF, and CDD/CDF.
Norm, ratio = normalization ratio of 12 percent C02 to
actual C02 measured which is used to normalize the results
to a standard basis.
2-4
-------
ISOMER
TABLE 2-3. CONTROLLED CDD/CDF EMISSIONS AT
NORTH ANDOVER RESCO
CONCENTRATION
(ng/dscm, corrected to 12% C02)
Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run 5 Average
DIOXINS
Mono-CDD
Di-CDD
Tri-CDD
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
TOTAL CDD
FURANS
Mono-CDF
Di-CDF
Tri-CDF
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDD/CDF
b
Norm, ratio
s
[0.002]
3.95
10.2
1.27
19.1
2.85
28.0
[12.9]
[12.8]
[14.3]
5.20
46.2
36.7
154
0.901
40.0
96.0
23.4
76.0
7.02
15.1
64.9
[6.47]
[6.74]
[9.17]
2.47
34.8
6.59
367
521
1.28
t
[0.002]
3.67
11.03
1.73
21.59
3.06
33.4
[14.3]
[13.5]
[16.4]
9.06
53.2
30.4
167
0.521
28.6
99.6
28.4
83.5
7.27
13.4
38.6
[7.06]
[7.35]
[10.5]
4.65
32.7
5.90
343
510
1.35
[0.005]
1.75
3.80
0.628
7.26
1.42
11.9
1.70
2.75
[0.054]
26.0
37.2
29.1
124
2.03
8.39
59.6
21.0
49.4
4.56
11.4
29.9
18.5
5.06
[0.034]
0.672
119
151
480
604
1.21
[0.003]
2.18
5.13
0.619
7.69
0.970
8.21
0.949
1.49
0.293
14.2
17.6
15.0
74.3
1.73
23.5
64.7
12.9
45.1
2.72
4.50
15.7
6.15
2.82
[0.010]
7.99
19.2
2.96
210
284
1.26
[0.007]
2.16
4.96
0.748
8.18
1.57
10.4
1.58
2.08
4.19
15.6
27.1
22.0
101
0.497
21.7
59.5
14.9
42.7
3.84
7.03
19.8
9.31
2.49
[0.041]
14.1
40.2
41.5
278
378
1.24
0.00
2.75
7.03
0.998
12.8
1.97
18.4
0.847
1.26
0.896
14.0
36.3
26.6
124
1.14
24.4
75.9
20.1
59.3
5.08
10.3
33.8
6.80
2.08
0.00
5.99
49.2
41.6
336
460
Not detected. Detection limit given in brackets. Congeners
that were not detected were considered zero when summing
total CDD, CDF, and CDD/CDF.
Norm, ratio = normalization ratio of 12 percent C02 to
actual C02 measured which is used to normalize the results
to a standard basis.
2-5
-------
TABLE 2-4. CDD/CDF CONTROL EFFICIENCIES FOR NORTH ANDOVER RESCO
NJ
I
RUN 3 •
Uncon- Con- Control
trolled trolled Efficiency
1SOMER (ng/dicm % 111 C02) (X)
DIOXINS
Hono-CDD
Di-CDD
Tri-CDD
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
TOTAL CDD
FUBANS
Mono-CDF
Di-CDF
Tri-CDF
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
Hepta-CDF
Octa-SDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDD/CDF
c
[0.001]
4.23
21.9
3.75
31.2
2.05
63.5
2.70
6.60
3.04
85.9
69.1
41.8
336
1.38
26.6
73.4
11.4
35.6
2.15
4.13
12.7
4.58
1.56
10. 002]
6.66
9.64
2.84
193
528
[0.005]
1.75
3.80
0.63
7.26
1.42
11.9
1.70
2.75
[0.054]
26.0
37.2
29.1
124
2.03
8.39
59.6
21.0
49.4
4.56
11.4
29.9
18.5
5.06
[0.034]
0.67
119
151
480
604
d
ND
58
83
83
77
30
81
37
58
100
69
46
30
63
-48
68
18
-85
-40
-114
-177
-137
-307
-226
ND
90
-1142
-5258
-151
-15
RUN 4 •
Uncon- Con- Control
trolled trolled Efficiency
(ng/dacm 8 12Z C02) (Z)
[0.0004]
2.14
5.49
0.27
5.55
0.69
7.54
0.67
1.24
2.02
9.70
14.9
16.7
66.9
3.22
25.9
57.4
9.02
27.0
1.93
3.53
9.18
2.93
1.01
0.06
3.86
7.99
1.97
155
222
[0.003]
2.18
5.13
0.62
7.69
0.97
8.21
0.95
1.49
0.29
14.2
17.6
15.0
74.3
1.73
23.5
64.7
12.9
45.1
2.72
4.50
15.7
6.15
2.82
[0.010]
7.99
19.2
2.96
210
284
ND
5.5
13
-112
-29
-30
-0.9
-31
-11
87
-35
-10
17
-3.0
50
16
-4.6
-33
-55
-31
-18
-59
-95
-159
100
-92
-123
-39
-26
-19
RUN 5 a
Uncon- Con- Control
trolled trolled Efficiency
(ng/dacn « 12Z C02) (Z)
[0.0004]
1.94
6.71
0.52
8.00
0.91
11.7
1 .00
1 .64
[0.004]
18.7
23.9
29.8
105
0.14
13.3
62.3
11.8
34.3
2.41
4.42
13.3
4.30
1.50
(0.002]
6.13
12.4
3.35
170
275
[0.0071
2.16
4.96
0.75
8.18
1.57
10.4
1.58
2.08
4.19
15.6
27.1
22.0
101
0.50
21.7
59.5
14.9
42.7
3.84
7.03
19.8
9.31
2.49
[0.041]
14.1
40.2
41.5
278
378
ND
-1.6
33
-30
6.9
-56
19
-44
-15
-- (e)
24
-3.3
33
13
-221
-49
13
-15
-13
-45
-45
-35
-97
-51
ND
-110
-195
-1027
-49
-25
b
Average
Control
ND
+
+
-
+
-
+
-
+
•f
+
•f
+
+
-
+
+
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
•f
-
-
*"
-
-
Control efficiencies were calculated baaed on naaa flow ratea.
Average control indicatea if the average control efficiency ia greater or leaa than zero (+ • greater than zero,
- • leaa than zero).
Not detected. Detection limit given in bracketa. Congenera that were not detected were considered zero when
aimming CDD, CDF, and CDD/CDF.
ND - not deternined. Congener not detected in either uncontrolled or controlled flue gaa;
no baaia to aaaume control or non-control.
Uncontrolled concentration not detected and controlled concentration detected. Control efficiency could not be calculated.
-------
The actual control efficiencies for CDD/CDFs in the gas may be obscured
by sampling and analytical uncertainties in the calculated values. Measured
CDD/CDF concentrations are considered to have an analytical uncertainty of
+50 percent. Calculated control efficiencies between 67 and -200 percent may
actually be either positive or negative when the analytical uncertainty is
considered.
2.1.3 CDD/CDF ESP Ash and Total Ash Discharge Results
The ESP ash sample was collected from an access door on the screw
conveyor prior to the ESP ash being mixed with the other process ash. A
sample was collected every 30 minutes during flue gas sampling. Ash sampling
began 45 minutes after the start of the flue gas sampling. Approximately 4
pounds of ESP ash were collected during each run and composited. An aliquot
of the composite sample was placed in a 950 mL amber glass bottle.
Approximately 10 grams of this aliquot was extracted by Triangle Laboratories
for CDD/CDF analysis.
The results of the CDD/CDF analysis of the ESP ash are summarized in
Table 2-5. The average 2378-TCDD concentration was 0.2 ng/g and the average
2378-TCDF concentration was 1.9 ng/g. The average total CDD concentration
was 55 ng/g and the average total CDF concentration was 48 ng/g. The average
total CDD/CDF concentration was 103 ng/g.
The total ash discharge sample was collected at the end of the vibrating
conveyor at the point where the ash was falling onto the belt conveyor which
transported the ash to the storage facility. Prior to the sampling point, the
bottom ash passed through a 10-inch scalper and rotating magnetic separator.
The magnetic separator for ferrous recovery was not operating during the first
three runs, but was brought back on-line for Runs 4-6. Then, the ESP ash and
boiler ash were added to the bottom ash on the vibrating conveyor belt to form
the total ash discharge.
The total ash discharge sample was riffled three times before it was
coned and quartered into a 15 kg sample. Metal components larger than two
2-7
-------
TABLE 2-5. CDD/CDF RESULTS OF THE ESP ASH ANALYSES
CONCENTRATION
(ng/g or ppb, mass basis)
ISOMER
Run 1
Run 2
Run 3
Run 4
Run 5 Average
DIOXINS
Mono-CDD
Di-CDD
Tri-CDD
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
TOTAL CDD
FURANS
Mono-CDF
Di-CDF
Tri-CDF
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxDCF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
b
[0.001]
0.06
1.00
0.35
4.31
1.13
8.00
1.79
[0.001]
[0.001]
17.4
22.3
30.6
86.9
[0.001]
[0.001]
5.50
3.36
15.3
1.22
2.36
14.5
5.41
2.56
[0.001]
14.9
21.3
4.94
91.3
TOTAL CDD/CDF 178
a
Average of
b
[0.001]
0.07
0.40
0.09
1.44
0.43
3.23
0.51
0.80
[0.001]
6.13
9.79
9.72
32.6
[0.001]
[0.001]
3.14
1.32
5.27
0.35
0.85
4.35
1.28
0.69
[0.001]
2.98
5.65
1.20
27.1
59.7
[0.001]
0.04
0.49
0.17
2.09
0.82
5.11
1.10
1.65
[0.001]
12.8
18.1
17.5
59.9
[0.001]
0.59
4.03
1.92
7.62
0.62
1.38
7.15
2.76
1.35
[0.001]
7.33
10.7
2.27
47.7
108
[0.001]
0.04
0.36
0.11
1.22
0.47
3.35
0.66
0.98
[0.001]
7.69
13.0
14.7
42.5
[0.001]
0.42
3.07
1.27
5.32
0.42
0.91
4.90
1.87
0.83
[0.001]
4.37
8.01
1.75
33.1
75.7
0.00
0.04
0.43
0.14
1.66
0.65
4.23
0.88
1.32
0.00
10.3
15.5
16.1
51.2
0.00
0.51
3.55
1.60
6.47
0.52
1.15
6.03
2.32
1.09
0.00
5.85
9.36
2.01
40.4
91.7
0.00
0.05
0.54
0.17
2.14
0.70
4.78
0.99
0.95
0.00
10.9
15.7
17.7
54.6
0.00
0.30
3.86
1.89
7.99
0.63
1.33
7.38
2.73
1.30
0.00
7.09
11.0
2.43
47.9
103
duplicate analyses.
Not detected. Detection limit given in brackets. Congeners that
were not detected were considered zero when summing total CDD, CDF
and CDD/CDF.
2-8
-------
inches were caught by the riffler and removed from the sample. An average of
seven percent (by weight) of the sample was removed by the riffler. The
riffled sample was then returned to Radian/RTP for further compositing. A
1 kg aliquot was sent to Triangle Laboratories for CDD/CDF analysis. The
remaining ash was archived for possible leachate analyses.
The results of the CDD/CDF analyses of the total ash discharge samples
are summarized in Table 2-6. The average total CDD concentration was 8.2
ng/g and the average total CDF concentration 5.3 ng/g. The average total
CDD and CDF concentration in the total ash discharge samples was 13.5 ng/g.
The CDD/CDF concentrations reported for the total ash discharge were
adjusted for inerts. Inerts are components of the total ash discharge, such
as metal and glass larger than one inch in diameter, which are removed from
the total ash discharge sample as the sample is placed in the sample bottle.
The weights of the discarded inerts were recorded and the CDD/CDF
concentrations which are ppb, by weight, were adjusted accordingly.
2.1.4 CDD/CDF Analyte-to-Particulate Ratios
The analyte-to-particulate ratios are calculated by dividing the total
CDD/CDF concentration (ng/dscm) in the flue gas by the particulate front half
concentration (mg/dscm) in the flue gas which expresses the ratio in microgram
of analyte per gram of total particulate. Ratios for the controlled flue gas
stream are presented in Table 2-7.
Uncontrolled particulate samples were not collected during Runs 3, 4 and
5; therefore no corresponding uncontrolled CDD/CDF analyte-to-particulate
data are available. However, uncontrolled particulate samples were collected
during Runs 7, 8 and 9. Thus, the uncontrolled analyte-to-particulate ratios
were calculated by dividing average particulate data from Runs 7 to 9 into
average CDD/CDF data from Runs 3 to 5 for each isomer. These ratios are
presented in Table 2-8, along with the average controlled ratios for
runs 2 to 5. Also included in this table are average CDD/CDF concentrations
in the ESP ash and total ash discharge samples.
2-9
-------
TABLE 2-6. CDD/CDF RESULTS OF THE TOTAL ASH DISCHARGE ANALYSES
ISOMER
CONCENTRATION
(ng/g or ppb, mass basis)
Run 1
Run 2
Run 3 Run 4 Run 5 Average
DIOXINS
Mono-CDD
Di-CDD
Tri-CDD
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
TOTAL CDD
FURANS
Mono-CDF
Di-CDF
Tri-CDF
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxDCF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
b
[0.001]
[0.001]
0.03
0.02
0.05
0.06
0.17
0.06
0.09
[0.002]
0.68
0.99
1.17
3.32
[0.001]
0.06
0.20
0.11
0.23
0.04
0.07
0.11
[0.0011
0.02
[0.001]
0.22
0.27
0.17
1.50
[0.001]
0.07
0.32
0.08
0.50
0.16
0.66
0.14
0.17
[0.001]
1.37
2.07
3.21
8.75
[0.001]
0.14
0.93
0.42
0.92
0.17
0.21
0.30
[0.001]
[0.001]
[0.001]
0.56
0.75
0.57
4.97
[0.001]
0.03
0.16
0.08
0.40
0.22
0.74
0.19
0.24
[0.002]
2.04
2.59
4.78
11.5
[0.001]
0.10
0.71
0.04
1.02
0.18
0.24
0.30
[0.627]
[0.001]
[0.001]
0.62
0.71
7.63
11.5
[0.001]
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.12
0.04
0.05
[0.002]
0.42
0.55
0.73
2.05
[0.001]
0.07
0.16
0.07
0.11
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.05
[0.001]
[0.001]
0.06
0.12
[0.006]
0.78
[0.001]
0.16
0.43
0.10
0.61
0.24
0.94
0.22
0.25
[0.001]
2.38
3.52
6.39
15.2
0.03
0.35
1.28
0.52
1.05
0.34
0.23
0.53
0.38
[0.001]
[0.001]
0.67
1.38
1.01
7.77
0.00
0.05
0.19
0.06
0.32
0.14
0.53
0.13
0.16
0.00
1.38
1.94
3.26
8.17
0.01
0.14
0.66
0.23
0.67
0.16
0.16
0.26
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.43
0.65
1.88
5.31
TOTAL CDD/CDF
a
4.82 13.7
23.0 2.83 23.0 13.5
Results are adjusted for inerts.
Not detected. Detection limit given in brackets. Congeners that
were not detected were considered zero when summing total CDD, CDF,
and CDD/CDF.
2-10
-------
TABLE 2-7. RATIO OF CONTROLLED CDD/CDF TO PARTICULATE
EMISSIONS
ISOMER
TOTAL CDD
FURANS
Mono-CDF
Di-CDF
Tri-GDF
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDD/CDF
ANALYTE-TO-PARTICULATE RESULTS
(ng analyte per g particulate)
:_======
Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run 5
14659 42014 10060 18427
Average
DIOXINS
Mono-CDD
Di-CDD
Tri-CDD
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
ND&
322
968
152
1894
268
2932
ND
ND
ND
795
4663
2666
ND
595
1293
214
2469
483
4034
578
935
ND
8857
12653
9901
ND
295
694
84
1041
131
1111
129
202
39
1915
2387
2032
ND
396
908
137
1498
288
1910
289
381
767
2855
4971
4026
ND
402
966
147
1726
293
2497
249
379
202
3605
6168
4656
21290
46
2508
8738
2491
7321
638
1178
3385
ND
ND
ND
408
2873
518
30104
44762
:=====
690
2854
20255
7133
16803
1551
3867
10184
6306
1721
ND
228
40466
51347
163408
205422
========
234
3180
8756
1748
6106
368
609
2129
832
382
ND
1081
2602
401
28427
38488
==========
92
3974
10899
2727
7821
703
1288
3628
1705
456
ND
2590
7355
7595
50836
69263
265
3129
12162
3525
9512
815
1735
4831
2211
640
0
1077
13324
14965
68194
89484
============;
Only front half particulate data were used.
ND = not detected. Minimum detection limit depends on
analyte concentration and particulate concentration.
2-11
-------
TABLE 2-8. FLUE GAS AND ASH CDD/CDF ANALYTE-TO-PARTICULATE RATIOS
Averages for Runs 1 to 5
ISOMER
FLUE GAS ASH
Uncontrolled2 Controlled ESP Total Discharge
(ng/g)b (ng/g)b (ng/g ash) (ng/gash)
DIOXINS
Mono-CDD
Di-CDD
Tri-CDD
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
NDC
1.29
5.31
0.708
6.97
0.570
12.9
0.697
1.48
0.789
17.8
16.8
13.7
ND
402
966
147
1730
293
2500
249
379
202
3610
6170
4660
ND
0.05
0.54
0.17
2.14
0.70
4.78
0.99
0.95
ND
10.9
15.7
17.7
ND
0.05
0.19
0.06
0.32
0.14
0.53
0.13
0.16
ND
1.38
1.94
3.26
TOTAL CDD
79.1
21300
54.6
8.17
FURANS
Mono-CDF
Di-CDF
Tri-CDF
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDD/CDF
0.739
10.3
30.1
5.02
15.1
1.01
1.88
5.49
1.84
0.786
0.009
2.59
4.68
1.27
80.7
160
265
3130
12200
3530
9510
815
1740
4830
2210
640
ND
1080
13300
15000
68200
89500
ND
0.30
3.86
1.89
7.99
0.63
1.33
7.38
2.73
1.30
ND
7.09
11.0
2.43
47.9
103
0.01
0.14
0.66
0.23
0.67
0.16
0.16
0.26
0.09
0.00
ND
0.43
0.65
1.88
5.31
13.5
a The average particulate loading for Runs 7, 8, and 9 and the
average CDD/CDF concentration for Runs 2 to 5 were used to
calculate the uncontrolled CDD/CDF ratio.
b ng/g * ng CDD/CDF per gram of particulate.
c ND = not detected in the flue gas. Detection limit varies with
each congener and is not presented here.
2-12
-------
The large difference between the uncontrolled and controlled ratios
indicates that the ESP is much better at removing particulate matter than
CDD/CDF. This suggests that CDD/CDF exists either mostly in the flue gas
vapor phase, or on a fine particulate that is largely unaffected by the ESP.
2.1.5 2378-TCDD Toxic Equivalency
The CDD/CDF results for uncontrolled and controlled emissions are
expressed in terms of 2378-TCDD toxicity equivalents (corrected to 12 percent
4
C02) in Table 2-9. Each isomer has a 2378-TCDD toxicity equivalency factor
(also presented in Table 2-9), which ranks the toxicity of the isomer relative
to the toxicity of 2378-TCDD. The equivalency factors were developed by EPA
and are used in risk analysis models. In terms of 2378-TCDD toxicity
equivalents, the average uncontrolled total CDD/CDF concentration was
4.5 ng/dscm; the average controlled total CDD/CDF 2378-TCDD toxic equivalent
concentration was 6.2 ng/dscm.
The ESP ash and total ash discharge CDD/CDF concentrations are
expressed in terms of 2378-TCDD toxicity equivalents in Tables 2-10 and 2-11.
In terms of 2378-TCDD equivalents, the ESP ash average total CDD/CDF
concentration was 1.1 ng/g. The total ash discharge samples showed a
2378-TCDD toxic equivalent concentration of 0.2 ng/g for average total
CDD/CDF.
2.1.6 Isomer Distributions
The distributions of CDD/CDF isomers expressed on a mole fraction basis
are presented in Table 2-12 for the uncontrolled and controlled flue gas
streams, Table 2-13 for the ESP ash samples, and Table 2-14 for the total ash
discharge samples. Isomer distributions are also shown graphically in
Figures 2-1 and 2-2.
In the uncontrolled flue gas, hexa, hepta, and octa-CDDs were the most
prevalent at about 20 mole percent each. The penta-CDDs were also abundant at
about 10 mole percent. A similar pattern is also found in the controlled flue
gas. The ESP ash and total ash discharge show a small shift from the lower
2-13
-------
TABLE 2-9. CDD/CDF CONCENTRATIONS EXPRESSED AS 2378-TCDD TOXIC EQUIVALENTS
2378 TCDD
EQUIV.
ISOMER FACTORS
DIOXINS
Mono-CDD
Di-CDD
Tri-CDD
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
f TOTAL CDD
*" FURANS
Mono-CDF
Di-CDF
Tri-CDF
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDD/CDF
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
1 .0000
0.0100
0.5000
0.0050
0.0400
0.0400
0.0400
0.0004
0.0010
0.0000
o.oooo
o.oooo
0.0000
0.1000
0.0010
0.1000
0.1000
0.0010
0.0100
0.0100
0.0100
0.0001
0.0010
0.0000
2378-TCDD Toxic Equivalent
Uncontrolled Flue Gas
Run 3 Run 4 Run 5 Average
0.000
0.000
0.000
3.75
0.312
1.03
0.318
0.108
0.264
0.122
0.034
0.069
0.000
6.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.14
0.036
0.215
0.413
0.013
0.046
0.016
0.000
0.001
0.010
0.000
1.89
7.89
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.271
0.055
0.347
0.038
0.027
0.050
0.081
0.004
0.015
0.000
0.887
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.902
0.027
0.193
0.353
0.009
0.029
0.010
0.001
0.000
0.008
0.000
1.53
2.42
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.522
0.080
0.454
0.058
0.044
0.065
0.000
0.007
0.024
0.000
1.25
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.17
0.034
0.240
0.440
0.013
0.043
0.025
0.000
0.001
0.012
0.000
1.98
3.24
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.51
0.149
0.609
0.138
0.060
0.126
0.067
0.015
0.036
0.000
2.71
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.07
0.032
0.216
0.402
0.012
0.039
0.017
0.000
0.001
0.010
0.000
1.80
4.51
Concentration (ng/dscm @ 12% C02)
Controlled Flue Gas
Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run 5 Average
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.27
0.191
1.42
0.140
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.046
0.000
3.07
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.34
0.076
0.702
1.51
0.065
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.035
0.000
4.73
7.80
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.73
0.216
1.53
0.167
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.004
0.053
0.000
3.70
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.84
0.083
0.727
1.34
0.039
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.033
0.000
5.07
8.77
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.628
0.073
0.711
0.059
0.068
0.110
0.000
0.010
0.037
0.000
1.70
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.10
0.049
0.456
1.14
0.030
0.185
0.051
0.000
0.000
0.119
0.000
4.12
5.82
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.619
0.077
0.485
0.041
0.038
0.060
0.012
0.006
0.018
0.000
1.35
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.29
0.045
0.272
0.450
0.016
0.061
0.028
0.000
0.001
0.019
0.000
2.18
3.54
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.748
0.082
0.783
0.052
0.063
0.083
0.168
0.006
0.027
0.000
2.01
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.49
0.043
0.384
0.703
0.020
0.093
0.025
0.000
0.001
0.040
0.000
2.80
4.81
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.998
0.128
0.987
0.092
0.034
0.051
0.036
0.006
0.036
0.000
2.37
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.01
0.059
0.508
1.03
0.034
0.068
0.021
0.000
0.001
0.049
0.000
3.78
6.15
-------
TABLE 2-10. ESP ASH CDD/CDF RESULTS EXPRESSED AS 2378-TCDD
TOXIC EQUIVALENTS
ISOMER
DIOXINS
Mono-CDD
Di-CDD
Tri-CDD
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
TOTAL CDD
FURANS
Mono-CDF
Di-CDF
Tri-CDF
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxDCF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDD/CDF
2378-TCDD
Toxic
Equiv.
Factors
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
1 .0000
0.0100
0.5000
0.0050
0.0400
0.0400
0.0400
0.0004
0.0010
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.1000
0.0010
0.1000
0.1000
0.0010
0.0100
0.0100
0.0100
0.0001
0.0010
0.0000
2378-TCDD TOXIC EQUIVALENT CONCENTRATION
(ng/g or ppb, mass basis)
Run 01 Run 02 Run 03 Run 04 Run 5a Average
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.350
0.043
0.565
0.040
0.072
0.000
0.000
0.007
0.022
0.000
1.10
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.336
0.015
0.122
0.236
0.014
0.054
0.026
0.000
0.001
0.021
0.000
0.826
1.93
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.090
0.014
0.215
0.016
0.020
0.032
0.000
0.002
0.010
0.000
0.400
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.132
0.005
0.035
0.085
0.004
0.013
0.007
0.000
0.000
0.006
0.000
0.287
0.687
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.170
0.021
0.410
0.026
0.044
0.066
0.000
0.005
0.018
0.000
0.760
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.192
0.008
0.062
0.138
0.007
0.028
0.014
0.000
0.001
0.011
0.000
0.459
1.22
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.110
0.012
0.235
0.017
0.026
0.039
0.000
0.003
0.013
0.000
0.456
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.127
0.005
0.042
0.091
0.005
0.019
0.008
0.000
0.000
0.008
0.000
0.306
0.761
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.140
0.017
0.323
0.021
0.035
0.053
0.000
0.004
0.016
0.000
0.608
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.160
0.006
0.052
0.115
0.006
0.023
0.011
0.000
0.001
0.009
0.000
0.382
0.990
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.172
0.021
0.350
0.024
0.040
0.038
0.000
0.004
0.016
0.000
0.664
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.189
0.008
0.063
0.133
0.007
0.027
0.013
0.000
0.001
. 0.011
0.000
0.452
1.12
a Average of duplicate analyses for Run 5.
2-15
-------
TABLE 2-11.
TOTAL ASH DISCHARGE CDD/CDF RESULTS EXPRESSED
AS 2378-TCDD TOXIC EQUIVALENTS
ISOMER
DIOXINS
Mono-CDD
Di-CDD
Tri-CDD
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
: = === ===== = :
2378-TCDD
Toxic
Equiv .
Factors
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
1 .0000
0.0100
0.5000
0.0050
0.0400
0.0400
0.0400
0.0004
0.0010
0.0000
2378-TCDD TOXIC EQUIVALENT CONCENTRATION
(ng/g or ppb, mass basis)
Run 01
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.020
0.001
0.030
0.001
0.002
0.004
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
Run 02
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.080
0.005
0.080
0.003
0.006
0.007
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.000
Run 03
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.080
0.004
0.110
0.004
0.008
0.010
0.000
0.001
0.003
0.000
Run 04
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.020
0.000
0.020
0.001
0.002
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
Run 05
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.100
0.006
0.120
0.005
0.009
0.010
0.000
0.001
0.004
0.000
Average
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.060
0.003
0.072
0.003
0.005
0.006
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.000
TOTAL CDD
0.059
0.183
0.218
0.045
0.254
0.152
FURANS
Mono-CDF
Di-CDF
Tri-CDF
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxDCF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDD/CDF
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.1000
0.0010
0.1000
0.1000
0.0010
0.0100
0.0100
0.0100
0.0001
0.0010
0.0000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.000
0.004
0.007
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.023
0.081
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.042
0.001
0.017
0.021
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.082
0.265
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.004
0.001
0.018
0.024
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.048
0.266
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.005
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.006
0.052
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.052
0.001
0.034
0.023
0.001
0.004
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.116
0.370
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.023
0.001
0.015
0.015
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.055
0.207
2-16
-------
TABLE 2-12. UNCONTROLLED AND CONTROLLED ISOMER DISTRIBUTIONS AT NORTH ANDOVER RESCO
I
I—'
--4
UNCONTROLLED
MOLE FRACTION
ISOMER Run 03 Run 04 Run 05 Average
DIOXIN
Mono-CDD
D1-CDD
TM-CDD
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
FURAN
Mono-CDF
D1-CDF
Tr1-CDF
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDF
0.00
0.02
0.09
0.01
0.11
0.01
0.20
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.25
0.18
0.10
0.01
0.17
0.41
0.06
0.18
0.01
0.02
0.06
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.03
0.04
0.01
0.00
0.05
0.11
0.00
0.10
0.01
0.12
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.14
0.20
0.21
0.03
0.20
0.39
0.05
0.16
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.01
0.00
0.03
0.09
0.01
0.09
0.01
0.12
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.18
0.21
0.24
0.00
0.10
0.41
0.07
0.20
0.01
0.02
0.07
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.03
0.05
0.01
0.00
0.03
0.09
0.01
0.10
0.01
0.15
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.19
0.20
0.18
0.01
0.16
0.40
0.06
0.18
0.01
0.02
0.06
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.01
Run 01
0.00
0.04
0.09
0.01
0.15
0.02
0.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.27
0.20
0.00
0.14
0.29
0.06
0.20
0.02
0.04
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0,07
0.01
Run 02
0.00
0.03
0.09
0.01
0.15
0.02
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.28
0.15
0.00
0.11
0.32
0.08
0.24
0.02
0.03
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.07
0.01
CONTROLLED
Run 03
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.01
0.07
0.01
0.11
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.21
0.28
0.20
0.01
0.03
0.17
0.05
0.12
0.01
0.03
0.07
0.04
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.22
0.26
Run 04
0.00
0.04
0.09
0.01
0.12
0.01
0.12
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.19
0.21
0.17
0.01
0.14
0.34
0.06
0.21
0.01
0.02
0.07
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.03
0.07
0.01
Run 05
0.00
0.03
0.07
0.01
0.10
0.02
0.11
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.15
0.25
0.18
0.00
0.11
0.26
0.06
0.16
0.01
0.02
0.07
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.04
0.12
0.11
Average
0.00
0.03
0.07
0.01
0.12
0.02
0.15
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.13
0.26
0.18
0.01
0.10
0.28
0.06
0.19
0.01
0.03
0.09
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.11
0.08
-------
TABLE 2-13. CDD/CDF ISOMER DISTRIBUTIONS IN THE ESP ASH SAMPLES
ISOMER
DIOXINS
Mono-CDD
Di-CDD
Tri-CDD
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
FURANS
Mono -CDF
Di-CDF
Tri-CDF
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxDCF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
Hep ta- CDF
Octa-CDF
Run 01
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.06
0.01
0.11
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.21
0.25
0.31
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.04
0.19
0.01
0.03
0.16
0.06
0.03
0.00
0.15
0.20
0.04
Run 02
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.06
0.02
0.11
0.02
0.03
0.00
0.20
0.29
0.26
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.05
0.22
0.01
0.03
0.16
0.04
0.02
0.00
0.10
0.17
0.03
MOLE FRACTIONS
Run 03 Run 04
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.04
0.02
0.10
0.02
0.03
0.00
0.22
0.29
0.26
0.00
0.02
0.11
0.05
0.18
0.01
0.03
0.15
0.05
0.03
0.00
0.14
0.19
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.04
0.01
0.09
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.19
0.30
0.31
0.00
0.02
0.12
0.04
0.18
0.01
0.03
0.15
0.05
0.02
0.00
0.12
0.21
0.04
Run 05a
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.04
0.01
0.10
0.02
0.03
0.00
0.21
0.29
0.28
0.00
0.02
0.11
0.04
0.18
0.01
0.03
0.15
0.05
0.03
0.00
0.13
0.20
0.04
Overall
Average
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.05
0.01
0.10
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.21
0.28
0.29
0.00
0.01
0.11
0.05
0.19
0.01
0.03
0.16
0.05
0.02
0.00
0.13
0.19
0.04
Average of duplicate analyses for Run 05.
2-18
-------
TABLE 2-14. CDD/CDF DISTRIBUTION IN THE TOTAL ASH DISCHARGE SAMPLES
ISOMER
MOLE FRACTIONS
Run 01 Run 02 Run 03 Run 04 Run 05 Average
DIOXINS
Mono-CDD
Di-CDD
Tri-CDD
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
FURANS
Mono -CDF
Di-CDF
Tri-CDF
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxDCF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
Hep ta- CDF
Octa-CDF
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.06
0.02
0.03
0.00
0.22
0.29
0.32
0.00
0.06
0.17
0.08
0.17
0.03
0.05
0.07
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.13
0.15
0.09
0.00
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.07
0.02
0.09
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.16
0.23
0.32
0.00
0.04
0.23
0.09
0.20
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.12
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.07
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.19
0.22
0.38
0.00
0.01
0.09
0.00
0.11
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.06
0.59
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.07
0.02
0.03
0.00
0.22
0.26
0.32
0.25
0.10
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.01
0.05
0.02
0.07
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.16
0.22
0.37
0.01
0.06
0.20
0.07
0.15
0.04
0.03
0.07
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.15
0.10
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.07
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.19
0.24
0.34
0.05
0.05
0.15
0.07
0.14
0.02
0.03
0.06
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.12
0.17
2-19
-------
Uncontrolled Flue
Mean Total CDDs = 1.41 n.g/dscm
OXM isowns
| -mm o*
KEY
Code Gongenef
Oloxlns
A = Mono-CDD
B = DI-CDD
C = Tr!-CDD
0 = 2378-TCDD
E = Other TCDD
F = 12378 PCDD
& ~ Other PCDD
H = 123478 HxCDD
i = 123878 HxCDD
J = 123789 HxCDD
K = Other HxCDD
L = Hepta-CDD
M = Octa-CDD
IZ3
.04
0 J-,
Controlled Flue Gas
Mean Tola! CDDs = 81 ng/dsem
1531 «< a
mm 3
mm. 4
T"—T""—y—|»*-"T»«-iMp
A * c o E r e. n i j K t
mttt'6
K.
cj
ro
I
ho
O
0.1
ESP Ash
Mean Total CDDs = 55 ng/g
a.te
as -
«.a
0.1 •
Total Discharge. Ash
Mean Total CDDs = B.2 ng/g.
JV
-------
Uncontrolled Flue Gas
Mean Total CDFs = 143 ng/dscm
lijU
Lop,
NOPQRS I U V -W X Y 2M
K8T&
KEY
Code Congener
Furans
N = Mono-CDF
O = DI-CDF
P = Tri-CDF
Q = 2378-TCDF
R = Other TCDF
S = 12378 PCOF
T = 23478 PCDF
U = Other PCDF
V = 123478 HxCOF
W = 123678 HxCDF
X = 123789 HxCDF
Y = Other HxCDF
2 = Hepta-CDF
AA =s Octa-COF
0.8
0.4 -
OJ -
Controlled Flue Gas
Mean Total CDFs = 262 ng/dscm
K53 am us
oc
to
ESP Ash
Mean Total CDFs = 48 ng/g
(Z2 RUN i
Total Discharge Ash
Mean Total CDFs = 5.3 ng/g
L
CO
(M
E23 «"« t
n n f o H s r u v w x v
i eoutus
K23 KUN i
KS3 NUN 4
Figure 2-2. Comparison of CDF Isomer Distributions at North Andover RESCO
-------
chlorinated isomers to the more highly chlorinated isomers, as compared with
the flue gas isomer distributions.
In the uncontrolled flue gas, tri-CDF was the most prevalent at 40 mole
percent, followed by other TCDF at 18 mole percent. The same pattern was
found in the controlled flue gas, which showed tri-CDF at 28 mole percent,
followed by other TCDF at 19 mole percent. The ESP ash and total discharge
ash isomer distributions show a shift from the lower chlorinated furans (di-
and tri-) to the higher chlorinated furans (hexa- and hepta-).
Overall, the data indicate that the ESP does not affect the distribution
of the isomers in the flue gas. However, since the ESP ash shows a small
shift to the more highly chlorinated congeners, these may be more readily
condensing or forming on the particulate after removal from the flue gas.
2.2 TOTAL ORGANIC CHLORIDE (TOCL) RESULTS FOR THE CONTROLLED FLUE GAS
The controlled flue gas TOCL sampling trains were operated concurrently
with the CDD/CDF flue gas sampling trains. Therefore, the TOCL results
represent the concentration of total organic chloride that was in the
controlled flue gas during the same time that CDD/CDF sampling was taking
place. TOCL sampling followed the CDD/CDF sampling protocol except that
hexane was used for sample recovery instead of methylene chloride. The TOCL
results are presented in Table 2-15, and are compared with the average
controlled 2378-TCDD, total CDD, total CDF, and total CDD/CDF results. No
correlation between these values was recognized.
2.3 PARTICULATE RESULTS
The particulate loading was measured at North Andover RESCO at both the
ESP inlet and ESP outlet locations. The uncontrolled and controlled results
for Runs 7 through 9 are summarized in Table 2-16. Table 2-16 also includes
flue gas and process parameters that were measured during testing. The
average controlled result does not include Run 7. This result was determined
to be a statistical outlier under the condition where extreme observations in
either direction are considered rejectable. The Run 7 controlled train
2-22
-------
TABLE 2-15. CORRELATION OF TOCL RESULTS TO CDD/CDF RESULTS
Run TOCL
1 10.3
2 20.4
3 349.6
4 156.0
5 53.5
Average
2378-
TCDD
0.99
1.28
0.52
0.49
0.60
Controlled (ng/dscm)
Total
CDD
120.3
123.9
101.9
58.9
81.3
Total
CDF
287.7
254.5
396.4
166.3
224.4
Total
CDD/CDF
407.9
378.5
498.3
225.2
305.7
2-23
-------
TABLE 2-16. SUMMARY OP UNCONTROLLED AND CONTROLLED PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FOR NORTH ANDOVER RESCO
Run No.
Date
Type Emliiloni
b
Flue Gas Characteristics
Volume gas sampled (dicf)
Flow rat* (d*c£m)
Tenx>erature ( F)
Moisture (percent by volume)
Isoklnetica (percent)
CO (ppm by volume, dry)
Run 7
07-14-86
Uncontrolled
83.8
91,700
599
16.1
101.8
NA
CO (percent by volume, dry) d
0 (percent by volume, dry)
Average opacity (percent)
d
NA
Controlled
120.5
98,300
579
15.4
99.7
35.9
8.5
11.5
0.31
Run 8
07-15-86
Uncontrolled
85.3
93,500
600
14.3
101.7
NA
10.2
9.8
NA
Controlled
114.9
94,800
575
13.6
98.6
35.7
8.6
8.3'
0.14
Run 9
07-16-86
Uncontrolled
82.7
92,200
609
14.3
102.1
NA
8.7
11.1
NA
Controlled
119.9
97,300
587
13.7
100.2
27.2
9.2
10.5
0.13
Average
Uncontrolled
—
92,500
603
14.9
101.9
NA
9.5
10.5
NA
Controlled
—
96,050
581
13.7
99.4
32.9
8.8
11.0
0.19
NJ
Process operations
Steam load (103 Ibs/hr) 170
Particutate Results
Front Half Catch)
(Probe, cyclone, and filter)
mg - mass 4866 152.2
gr/dscf 0.8965 0.0195
gr/dscf (corrected to 12X CO ) 1.148 0.0250
mg/dscm 2,052 44.6
mg/dscm (corrected to 12X C02) 2,627 57.1
Ibs/hr 705 16.4
Kg/hr 320 7.45
v
Collection Efficiency Percent 97.67
3450
0.6242
0.7366
1,429
1,686
501
277
168
23.6
0.0032
0.0044
7.25
10.0
2.58
1.17
3580
0.6682
0.9221
1,529
2,100
528
240
165
28.5
0.0037
0.0054
8.39
12.2
3.06
1.39
168
0.7296
0.9356
1,670
0.0035
0.0049
7.82
99.49
99.42
578 2.82
262 1.28
99.46
*Valuas from Run 7 controlled are not Included In averages. See Section 2.3 for explanation.
Conversion factors: dscf x 0.028317 - dscmi dscfm x 0.028317^ daemon (°F - 32) x 5/9 - °C
Standard conditions are 68°F (20°C) and 1 atm (1.01325 x 10 Pa).
Controlled values are averages of data taken over the sampling period from continuous emission monitors at the ESP outlet location.
Uncontrolled values were obtained using EPA Method 3 (Orsat analysis).
dThe EPA Method 3 bag for Run 7 was contaminated with air for the uncontrolled sample. For Run 7 only, the controlled CEM results
were used to adjust the uncontrolled data to a 12 percent CO basis.
*Thls value is not Included in the oxygen average and is considered an Invalid data point.
-------
developed a broken liner during sampling in one of the ports. Considering
this, the concentration would be expected to be lower than the average unless
extraneous glass fragments were recovered in the sample. Instead, the
concentration is higher. This could be attributed to the higher opacity
during Run 7, except that Run 6 had an even higher average opacity while
still having a controlled particulate loading within range of the data, which
varied from 0.0013 to 0.0054 grains/dscf normalized to 12 percent CO-.
However, the metal-to-particulate ratios discussed in Section 2.4 are similar
for all three runs, which indicates that the ESP may have malfunctioned during
Run 7. Opacity data logged every 30 minutes shows a wide variation in opacity
during Run 7, indicating that process upsets may have occurred. ESP operating
data for Run 7 are not available for review at this time. Therefore, since a
broken probe liner developed during Run 7 at the ESP outlet, and a malfunction
of the combustor and/or ESP may have occurred, the Run 7 controlled
particulate data are not included in the particulate averages presented.
The average uncontrolled particulate concentration normalized to
12 percent CO,, was 0.9356 grains/dscf and the average controlled concentration
was 0.0049 grains/dscf at 12 percent C0?. The average collection efficiency
of the ESP was 99.46 percent.
The controlled particulate loading was measured for all nine runs
performed at North Andover RESCO. The results are summarized in Table 2-17.
The average controlled particulate loading was 0.0036 grains/dscf normalized
to 12 percent C0«. However, the results from Runs 1, 6, and 7 are not
included in the average.
The particulate loading results from Run 1 are considered invalid due to
port scrapings that were collected on the filter. After Run 1, the ports were
lined with stove pipe to prevent rusty flakes from the port from being drawn
into the sampling train.
For Run 6, the combustor was determined by Signal Environmental
Systems, Inc., to be operating at abnormal conditions after testing was
2-25
-------
TABLE 2-17. SUMMARY OF CONTROLLED PARTICIPATE EMISSIONS FOR NORTH ANOOVER RESCO
Run No.
Date
Flue Gas Characteristics
Volume gas sampled (dscf)
Flow rate (dscfm)
Temperature (°F)
Moisture (percent by volume)
Isoklnetlcs (percent)
CO (ppm by volume, dry)°
CO. (percent by volume. dry)c
0, (percent by volume* dry)0
Average opacity (percent)
Process operations
Steam load (103 Ibs/hr)
Part leg late Results6
Front Half Catch)
(Probe, and filter)
mg - mass
gr/dscf
gr/dscf (corrected to 12% C0_)
mg/dscm
mg/dscm (corrected to 12* CO-)
Ibs/hr
Kg/hr
Run 1
7-8-86
54.50
96.800
582
12.6
100.7
28.4
9.0
10.9
NR
166
31.8
0.0090
0.0150
20.6
26.4
7.47
3.39
Run 2
7-9-86
53.4
95,000
587
13.3
100.6
37.4
8.9
10.9
0.10
165
13.5
0.0039
0.0050
8.92
11.4
3.17
1.44
Run 3
7-10-86
84.3
85,800
559
12.8
100.0
25.4
8.9
10.5
0.12
166
5.8
0.0011
0.0013
2.43
2.94
0.781
0.354
Run 4
7-11-86
107.2
87,200
567
12.6
100.0
45.2
9.6
10.7
0.12
166
18.7
0.0027
0.0032
6.16
7.39
2.01
0.912
Run 5
7-12-86
106.5
86,200
565
13.6
100.6
25.7
9.8
10.1
0.13
167
13.6
0.0020
0.0023
4.67
5.46
1.51
0.684
Run 6
7-13-86
115.9
94.300
577
13.0
100.0
31.1
9.2
10.8
0.55
163
29.3
0.0039
0.0048
8.93
10.9
3.15
1.43
Run 7 ,
7-14-86
120.5
98.300
579
15.4
99.7
35.9
8.5
11.5
0.31
170
152.2
0.0195
0.0250
44.6
57.1
16.4
7.45
Run 8
7-15-86
114.9
94,800
575
13.6
98.6
35.7
8.6
8.3d
0.14
168
23.6
0.0032
0.0044
7.25
10.0
2.58
1.17
Run 9
7-16-86
119.9
97,300
587
13.7'
100.2
27.2
9.2
10.5
0.13
165
28.5
0.0037
0.0054
8.39
12.2
3.06
1.39
Average3
—
9.1,050
573
13.4
100.0
32.8
9.2
10.5
0.12
166
--
0.0028
0.0036
6.30
8.23
2.19
0.99
a
.Values from Runs 1, 6, and 7 are not Included (n the averages. See Section 2.3 for explanation.
Conversion factors: dscf x 0.028317 - dscmj dscfm x 0.028317.» dscrnm; ( F - 32) x 5/9 = C
Standard conditions are 68 F (20 C) and 1 attn (1.01325 x 10 Pa).
dThese values are averages of data taken over the sampling period from continuous emissions monitors at the ESP outlet location.
This value Is not Included In the 0- average and Is considered an Invalid data point.
eResults are adjusted for blank results.
NR = data not recorded by plant.
-------
completed. The combustor had developed a broken grate bar during Run 5
which was manually cleaned until Run 5 was completed. Then, the combustor was
shut down overnight and repaired. When Run 6 began the next day, the
combustor appeared to be operating normally but Signal later decide that the
combustor was still in a start-up operating mode. Run 7 was not included in
the average for the reasons discussed previously in this section.
2.4 METALS EMISSIONS RESULTS FOR NORTH ANDOVER RESCO
In order to screen the flue gas for multiple metals, the EPA Method 12
samples collected at the ESP inlet and ESP outlet were analyzed by NAA.
The NAA analytical method has not been validated, however, and the results for
cadmium, arsenic, total chromium, and nickel should be considered only as
screening results. No lead results are reported for these analyses since NAA
does not measure lead.
2.4.1 Flue Gas Metals Results
The metals emission results for the selected metals of interest are
summarized in Table 2-18. These results should be considered as screening
results because the NAA analytical method has not been validated. The average
normalized arsenic concentration was 1,008 ug/dscm uncontrolled, and 2.83
ug/dscm controlled. The average ESP collection efficiency for arsenic was
99.74 percent. The average normalized cadmium concentration was 468 ug/dscm
uncontrolled, and 16.2 ug/dscm controlled. The average ESP collection
efficiency for cadmium was 96.65 percent. For total chromium, the average
normalized concentration was 5,169 ug/dscm uncontrolled, and 5.2 ug/dscm
controlled. The average ESP collection efficiency for total chromium was
99.87 percent. The average normalized nickel concentration was 487 ug/dscm
uncontrolled, and 37.2 ug/dscm controlled. The average ESP collection
efficiency for nickel was 81.75 percent.
Total chromium and arsenic demonstrated the highest collection
efficiencies, with collection efficiencies in the greater than 99 percent
2-27
-------
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF EPA SPECIFIC METALS EMISSIONS FOR NORTH ANDOVER RESCO*
N)
I
CO
Run 7
07-14-86
Type Emissions
Flue Gas Characteristics
Volume gas sampled (dscf)
Flow rate (dscfm)
Temperature ( P)
Moisture (percent by volume)
Isoklnetlcs (percent)
CO (ppm by volume, dry)
CO (percent by volume, dry)
0 (percent by volume, dry)
Average opacity (percent)
Process operations
Steam load (103 Ibs/hr)
Specific Metals Results
(Corrected to 12X CO )
Element
Arsenic
Cadmium
Total chromium
Nickel
Uncon-
trolled
83.8
91,700
599
16.1
101.8
NA
d
A
NA
Uncon-
trolled
(ug/dscm)
786
402
2,494
594
Con-
trolled
120.5
98,300
579
15.4
99.7
35.9
8.5
11.5
0.31
170
Con-
trolled
(ug/dscm) CE (X)(
25.6 96.51
34.6 90.78
2,291 1.51
1,357 -145
Run 8
07-15-86
Uncon-
trolled
85.3
93,500
600
14.3
. 101.7
NA
10.2
9.8
NA
Uncon-
trolled
(ug/dsca)
981
470
3,370
831
Con-
trolled
114.9
94,800
575
13.6
98.6
35.7
8.6
8.3'
0.14
168
Con-
trolled
(ug/dscm) CE (X)g
2.35 99.79
6.93 98.72
10.4 99.73
25 . 6 97 . 32
Run 9
07-16-86
Uncon-
trolled
82.7
92,200
609
14.3
102.1
NA
8.7
11.1
HA
Uncon-
trolled
(ug/dscm)
1,036
465
6,968
143
Con-
trolled
119.9
97,300
587
13.7
100.2
27.2
9.2
10.5
0.13
165
Con-
trolled
(ug/dscm) CE (X)g
3.30 99.68
25.4 94.57
0.00 100.00
48.8 66.17
Average
Uncon-
trolled
—
92,500
603
14.9
101.9
NA
9.5
10.5
NA
Unconr
trolled
(ug/dscm)
1,008
468
5,169
487
Con-
trolled
—
96,050
581
13.7
99.4
32.9
8.8
11.0
0.19
168
Con-
trolled CE
(ug/dscm) (X)
2.83 99.74
16.2 96.65
5.2 99.87
37.2 81.75
*The metals results are from NAA analysis. This analytical method has not been validated and the results should be considered for screening only.
A quality assurance audit was performed for NAA metals analysis.
Conversion factors: dscf x 0.028317 - dscrai dscfm x 0.028317 - dscmmi (°F - 32) x 5/9 - °C
Standard conditions are 68°F (20°C) and 1 atm (1.01325 x 10 Pa).
Controlled values are averages of data taken over the sampling period from continuous emission monitors. Uncontrolled values were obtained using
EPA Method 3 (Orsat analysis).
dTha EPA Method 3 bag for the Run 7 uncontrolled sample was contaminated with air. For Run 7 only, the controlled CEM results were used to adjust
the uncontrolled data to a 12 percent C02 basis.
*Thls value is not Included In the average and Is considered an Invalid data point.
fThese results are for the total train. Beryllium and lead determination not possible by NAA analysis. Values are corrected for blank results.
*CE - collection efficiency based on mass rates.
"Average concentrations and control efficiencies based on runs 8 and 9 only. Run 7 Is not Included because the outlet probe liner broke during the
run.
''When a sample concentration is less than or equal to the blank concentration, the blank-adjusted sample concentration is reported as zero.
-------
range. The ESP was less efficient for collecting cadmium, and was the least
efficient for collecting nickel.
The specific metals results contain some outliers. Nickel and chromium
in Run 7 have collection efficiencies that are very low or negative caused by
a high controlled result. Although the results were adjusted for blanks,
precleaned glassware was used, and contact of the train with metal was
minimized, contamination may have occurred. The glass probe liner at the ESP
outlet broke during this run, which may have been the source of the
contamination. Thus, the results for all metals from Run 7 are not included
in the averages reported.
2.4.2 ESP Ash Metals Results
The results of the ESP ash metals analyses by NAA are presented in
Table 2-19. The most prevalent metals were aluminum, calcium, sodium, zinc,
potassium, chlorine, iron, and titanium. These metals had concentrations
ranging from 17,000 to 80,000 ppm. Total chromium was detected at 679 ppm,
cadmium was detected at 356 ppm, arsenic was detected at 365 ppm, and nickel
was detected at 243 ppm. Relatively large amounts of sodium in the sample may
cause interference for elements nearby in the spectrum, such as arsenic,
cadmium, potassium, bromine, antimony, and samarium. It is important to note
here that the NAA analytical method is not an EPA validated method.
2-29
-------
TABLE 2-19. SUMMARY OF ESP ASH METALS RESULTS
Element
Aluminum
Calcium
Sodium
Zinc
Potassium
Chlorine
Iron
Titanium
Magnesium
Tin
Bromine
Barium
Manganese
Copper
Antimony
Q
Chromium
Arsenic
Cadmium
Nickel
MICROGRAM
Run 07
80208
64044
42350
29631
14193
14730
22791
16665
6731
2390
1956
1354
1263
1115
1073
568
75
274
181
OF ELEMENT PER
Run 08
84888
64856
46332
34904
30123
27258
14642
17231
5600
3813
1530
1594
1233
1177
1000
441
465
392
448
GRAM OF ASH
Run 09
78073
83180
43271
37267
16556
17392
14928
16837
6672
4099
932
1189
1169
1317
973
1029
554
401
100
(PPM)a>b
Average
81056
70693
43984
33934
20290
19794
17453
16911
6334
3434
1473
1379
1222
1203
1015
679
365
356
243
aVhen using NAA, sodium in the matrix may interfere with certain metals
results.
Results for the remaining metals are presented in Appendix I of Reference 1.
CTotal chromium results are presented.
2-30
-------
3.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION
This section contains a description of the combustor process and air
pollution control system at the North Andover facility. The combustor
operating conditions during testing are summarized in Section 3.3. The ESP
operating conditions are not reported since they are considered confidential
by the facility. The operating data have been summarized as averages
calculated over each test run interval.
3.1 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
The North Andover facility, which began operation in 1985, consists of
two identical mass-burn waterwall combustors. Each unit is designed to burn
685 Mg/day (750 ton/day) of municipal waste and produce 93,000 kg/hr (198,000
Ib/hr) of steam at 4,130kPa (600 psig) and 400°C (750°F). Steam from both
boilers drives a 40-MW turbine-generator. Figure 3-1 presents a diagram of
the North Andover process line. Design data for the combustor are
summarized in Tables 3-1 and 3-2.
The refuse is neither shredded nor sorted before it is transferred by
overhead cranes from an enclosed pit to gravity-fed hoppers. Hydraulic rams,
located at the bottom of the feed hoppers, are used to charge the waste onto
Martin reciprocating grates.
Underfire and overfire air is drawn from the pit area to fuel the
combustion process, which is designed to achieve temperatures in excess of
1370°C (2500°F). Underfire air is supplied through the grates, and overfire
air is distributed through nozzles located on the front and rear walls above
the flame zone.
3-1
-------
Total Ash
Dlachacga
Secondary
Fan
Quench Tank
Figure 3 -1. North Andover RESCO Process Line
-------
TABLE 3-1. NORTH ANDOVER FACILITY STRUCTURAL DESIGN DATA
Chamber configuration
Primary chamber Secondary c"na«ber
CO
CO
Geometric
config-
uration
Rectangular
Geometric Heat transfer area Grate data
VoluM, conflg- Volume, "Flfadla-, Convec-, No. of Pressure Capacity,
ft3 uratlon ft3 tlve ft* tlve. ft* Type sections drop tons/d
29.000 NA 2,700 50,700 Martin reciprocating
-------
TABLE 3-2. NORTH ANDOVER FACILITY AIRFLOW DESIGN DATA
Underfire air
No.
of con- Flow
No. of trolled rate,
plenums flows acfa
Flow distribution, percent
Overflre air
Feed
Dry
Combus-
tion
Burnout Location
Flow
direction
Nozzle data
No.
Type
Velocity
50.000
u>
I
Front nail Horizontal 30 2 3/4" dleMter
Back Mall Inclined 31 2 3/4" dlaaeter
-------
Each combustor has a volume of 820 m (29,000 ft ), and each
2 2
combustor/boiler has 4,900 m (53,000 ft ) of heat transfer area. Bottom ash
is quenched before being combined with the boiler fly ash and ESP ash.
Each unit is equipped with an in-situ CEM system for measuring carbon
monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO ) , oxygen (0 ), oxides of nitrogen (NO ),
^ 4— X
sulfur dioxide (SO,,) , and opacity. The CEM units are located just downstream
of the ESP outlet sampling location.
3.2 AIR POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEM
The air pollution control systems consists of two identical ESPs designed
to reduce the particulate matter to a level of 115 mg/Nm (0.05 grains/dscf)
at 12 percent CO-, which corresponds to about 98 percent collection
efficiency. (Design data for the ESP's are considered confidential by the ESP
manufacturer.)
3.3 EVALUATION OF INCINERATOR OPERATION DURING TESTING
Combustor and ESP operating conditions were monitored by plant
personnel in the control room. The following combustor process parameters
were recorded every 30 minutes: steam flow; steam drum pressure; superheater
(SH) outlet temperature and pressure; economizer inlet feedwater (FW)
temperature; economizer outlet FW temperature (east and west); gas temperature
entering SH; gas temperature exiting economizer; percent oxygen exiting
economizer; primary air temperature, pressure, and flow; forced draft (FD) fan
percent damper opening; secondary air temperature, pressure (front and rear
walls), flow, fan percent damper opening; and opacity.
The qualitative evaluation of the combustor operation during the
sampling intervals was accomplished by plotting the process parameters against
time. The plant operating data and the Radian CEM data sets were used. The
combustor operating data, which were recorded manually every 30 minutes during
testing, were entered into Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheets to generate the plots.
The Radian CEM data were recorded as one-minute averages. The data were
imported into Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheets to generate the plots.
3-5
-------
Thirteen process parameters were included in the evaluation: oxygen,
carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide measured at the ESP outlet sampling
location; oxygen concentration at the economizer outlet; opacity upstream of
the outlet sampling location; flue gas temperatures at the superheater inlet,
superheater outlet and economizer outlet; steam load; primary air temperature
and flow rate; forced draft fan damper opening; and grapple count.
The average values of process data recorded by the plant are presented in
Tables 3-3 and 3-4. The individual data points are plotted in Figures 3-2 to
3-17. Each set of variables is shown on two consecutive figures. Runs 1-4
are on the first figure and Runs 5,7, 8 and 9 are on the second figure. Run
6 data are not included in these figures and the following discussion because
Signal determined that the process was operating abnormally during this run.
Emissions data for Run 6 are not included in this report either.
3.3.1 Fixed Gases Evaluation (0... CO. CO.) and THC
2 i.
The fixed gases data shown in Figures 3-2 and 3-3 show that the oxygen
concentration in the flue gas varied within a two percent range and was normal
during the test period. Carbon monoxide rarely exceeded 50 ppm and showed the
widest variation during Run 2 where it varied by 20 ppm. Carbon monoxide was
at its highest during Run 4 when CO. was about 2 percent lower than the other
runs. Overall, however, none of these parameters were significantly out of
the normal operating ranges seen during the test program. The full-size plots
of the carbon monoxide data are included in Figures 3-4 to 3-11.
Total hydrocarbons varied at most between 0.5 to 2 ppmv, on a dry basis
as propane, during Runs 2-5. The average THC concentration was 0.9 ppm.
3.3.2 Flue Gas and Steam Temperature Evaluation
The superheater inlet temperature, superheater outlet temperature and
economizer outlet temperature are plotted in Figures 3-12 and 3-13. For
Runs 1-5, the flue gas temperatures at the superhater inlet and economizer
were maintained at similar and constant levels. The steam exiting the
3-6
-------
TABLE 3-3. AVERAGE PROCESS DATA FOR NORTH ANDOVER INCINERATOR TESTS
July 9 through 16, 1986
Date
07/08/86
07/09/86
07/10/86
07/11/86
07/12/86
07/13/86
07/14/86
07/15/86
07/16/86
Run
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Steam load,
Ib/h x 10
166
165
166
166
166
163
170
168
165
Steam
drum
pres-
sure,
psig
NRa
670
674
680
680
667
680
680
680
S.
Temp . ,
760
759
751
755
757
745
745
748
750
H. out
Pressure,
psig
600
600
600
600
NR
600
600
600
600
Econ.
in FW
temp. ,
°F
225
225
226
226
226
225
227
226
226
Econ.
out FW
temp. ,
F
498
498
498
498
498
498
498
498
498
Gas
In
S.H., °F
1,233
1,281
1,245
1,257
1,267
1 ,090
1,217
1,262
1,126
temp.
Out
econ. , F
569
570
547
562
562
587
585
578
586
NR = Not recorded by plant personnel,
-------
TABLE 3-4. AVERAGE PROCESS DATA FOR NORTH ANDOVER INCINERATOR TESTS
July 9 through 16, 1986
_ - _
Date
07/08/86
07/09/86
07/10/86
07/11/86
Co
oo 07/12/86
07/13/86
07/14/86
07/15/86
07/16/86
Run
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
v
250
179.5
187.3
184.6
148.8
82.8
94.3
94.8
100.3
Primary air
Pressure
in w.c. 10
16.00
16.00
16.46
16.00
16.00
16.00
16.00
16.00
16.00
Secondary
Flow,
ft /min
NRa
43.9
38.3
38.8
36.8
43. 9b
44. 5b
44. 7b
45. 9b
Pressure,
in w.c .
Front
17.4
16.5
16.5
16.3
16.0
16.4
16.1
16.1
16.5
Back
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.4
15.3
15.0
15.0
Flow. 103
Front
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
62 .4b
66. 5b
69. 3b
69. lb
ft /min
Back
NR
NR
NR
MR
NR
41 .3b
41 .4b
40. 2b
40. lb
Fan damp
opening,
percent
NR
35.3
NR
NR
NR
31.9
31.9
33.6
34.7
FD fan
damp
open,
percent
NR
18.5
15.0
15.3
15.5
17.6
17.3
18.9
18.9
Buckets/
hour
12
12
12
12
13
12
NR
15
14
NR - Not recorded by plant personnel.
The air flow rates presented appear to be unrealistic because they would indicate that the combustor was
operating at 70 percent overfire air. We believe that the data may have been incorrectly interpreted from the
plant gauges or incorrectly recorded. Additional information was requested from facility personnel, but none was
provided.
-------
LO
VD
14'
•« 12-
10-
100-
75-
25-
12
8!
8*
i a.
S 1-1
O
'SI
DO
9-
8-
Run 1
Run 2
Run 3
Data Not Recorded
Reading reported every 30
minutes. Results on a
wet basis.
I
o i
Elapsed Time (hours)
Run 4
Figure 3-2. Variability of Fixed Gas Concentrations for Runs 1-4 at
North Andover RESCO
oc
S
§
r-~
a
-------
I
>—'
o
I
81
8°
o
_
If
O §
at
Run 5
14
12-
10-
100-
75-
50-
25
12-
10-
£ 8
3
2
1
9-
8-
Run 7
Reading reported every 30
minutes. Results on a
wet basis.
Data Not Recorded
1
Run 8
Data Not Reported
Because of Instrument
Malfunction
Data Not Recorded
1
Run 9
Data Not Recorded
7
Elapsed Time (hours)
Figure 3-3. Variability of Fixed Gas Concentrations for Runs 5, 7, 8, and 9 at §
North Andover RESCO s
-------
Q
2
Q.
0.
V-X
Z
o
I
ui
o
Z
o
o
100
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
30
20 -
10 -
0
13
—T~
15
17
19
CLOCK TIME
Figure 3-4. Carbon Monoxide Concentration History
Run 1 for North Andover RESCO
-------
u>
I
5
Q.
Q.
v_x
Z
o
F
kl
O
Z
O
O
100 -
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
0
10
12
14
CLOCK TIME
16
18
20
Figure 3-5. Carbon Monoxide Concentration History
Run 2 for North Andover RESCO
-------
U)
I
Q.
Q.
^/
Z
o
p
Id
O
Z
O
o
100
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
0
10
12
14
i
16
CLOCK TIME
Figure 3-6. Carbon Monoxide Concentration History
Run 3 for North Andover RESCO
-------
U)
K
Q
2
Q.
Q.
V^/
Z
O
U
O
Z
O
O
100 -
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
11
l
13
i
15
CLOCK TIME
r
17
Figure 3-7. Carbon Monoxide Concentration History
Run 4 for North Andover RESCO
-------
CO
I
2
0.
Q.
Nw»
z
o
I
UJ
o
z
o
o
100
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
0
10
12
14
CLOCK TIME
16
18
Figure 3-8. Carbon Monoxide Concentration History
Run 5 for North Andover RESCO
-------
U)
I
01
10
<
m
K
Q
2
Q.
Q.
100
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
0
15
17
19
21
24 HOUR CLOCK
Figure 3-9. Carbon Monoxide Concentration History
Run 7 for North Andover RESCO
-------
U)
I
(f\
&
K.
Q
2
0.
DL
100
90 -
80 -
70 -i
60 -
50
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
0
9.5
10.5
11.5
24 HOUR CLOCK
12.5
Figure 3-10. Carbon Monoxide Concentration History
Run 8 for North Andover RESCO
13.5
-------
I
(—'
oo
o:
Q
2
Q.
0.
100
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
0
9.5
10.5
T
I
11.5 12.5
24 HOUR CLOCK
13.5
Figure 3-11. Carbon Monoxide Concentration History
Run 9 for North Andover RESCO
14.5
-------
U)
I-'
VO
1.3-
Sgc: 1-aH
C3 a."
•^HC. 1'2~
c 1-15-
Q)
E2
at a>
760-
O)
O
0)
o
742-
580-
580-
540 —
520
Run 1
Run 2
Run 3
Run 4
8 1 3
Elapsed Time (hours)
Figure 3-12. Variability of Various Flue Gas and Steam Temperatures for
Runs 1-4 at North Andover RESCO
-------
u>
I
c
-------
superheater also was maintained at a near constant temperature. The
economizer outlet temperature varied the most over a 20°F range. During Runs
7 and 8, the superheater flue gas inlet temperature was back to normal, but
the superheater steam outlet temperature was still low. The economizer
temperature was 20°F higher. During Run 9, the temperatures at the
superheater flue gas inlet and steam outlet were significantly lower than the
previous runs. The economizer outlet temperature was not affected.
Overall, the combustor was operating significantly differently during
Runs 7-9, than during Runs 1-5.
3.3.3 Load and Opacity Evaluation
The fluctuations in steam load, grapple count and opacity are shown in
Figures 3-14 and 3-15. Steam load was maintained at a normal rate during all
the runs varying up to 5,000 Ib/hr. The grapple count varied from 8 to 14
buckets per hour to maintain the steam load. These parameters appear to be
operating normally during all the runs.
Opacity showed significant increases during Run 6 and Run 7, with an
occasional peak during Runs 5 and 8. The opacity during Runs 1-5 had
typically been maintained under 10 percent, but during Run 7 peaked over
50 percent. Atypical operation definitely occurred during Run 7.
3.3.4 Primary Air Evaluation
The fluctuations of the forced draft (FD) fan, primary air temperature,
and primary air flow rate are shown in Figures 3-16 and 3-17. During Run 1,
the FD fan damper position was at 55 percent, significantly higher than the
rest of the runs where it was set at 15 percent. The primary air temperature
was at 250°F during Run 1, dropped to approximately 180°F for Runs 2-4, and
dropped midway through Run 5 to 80°F for Runs 5-9. The primary air flow was
at 44,000 cfm during Run 2, dropped to 30,000 cfm during Runs 3-5, and went
back up to 44,000 during Runs 7-9. These operating data indicate that there
was some significant differences in operation between Runs 1, Runs 2-5, and
Runs 7-9.
3-21
-------
Run 1
Run 2
Run 3
Run 4
fu —
>, 50-
•*—
&£• 30-
Grapple Count Steam Load
(number/hour) (10* Ib/hour)
^ -*. ** A O> "nj —
CD O K> Jfc 0 <* O C
III! Ill 1
No Data Furnished
by Plant
•s^
^^
-^-VW_ /V
-\
\i -yv\
^-—^^—/^
~^
^A, '*\ /*~* V /** /
Y_-V/'
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
912345 2468 1 3 5 2 4 6
Elapsed Time (hours)
DC
Figure 3-14. Variability of Opacity, Steam Load, and Grapple Count for |
Runs 1-4 at North Andover RESCO §
-------
CO
I
N>
U)
70-
10-
170-
(0 C. tOO-
14-
Sf «
TL
-------
EU.&
45-
«-
|
[?
250-
200-
150-
100-
55-
i
•P-
.=
C
Q fe=^
u. a
cd
25-
10
Run 1
No Data Furnished
by Plant
Run 2
Run 3
T
8
Elapsed Time (hours)
Run 4
Figure 3-16. Variability of Air Flow Rate for Runs 1-4 at North Andover RESCO
CO
CM
-------
Run 5
Run 7
Run 8
Run 9
I
N>
Ln
45-
$ O 40 ~
t—
""* 35-
250-
£
B 200-
|-^ 150-
H
100-
0» 55-
c
'c
9-^ 40 -
t
.»
25 —
10
1 1 1 T
34 1 3
Elapsed Time (hours)
Figure 3-17. Variability of Air Flow Rate for Runs 5, 7, 8, and 9 at
North Andover RESCO
cr
en
-------
Table 3-5 presents the average GEM data from the plant's instrumentation.
Also shown in Table 3-5 are the results from Radian's CEMs. The instruments
used by the plant are in-situ analyzers which give results on a wet basis.
The results have been corrected to a dry basis for equivalent comparison to
the Radian GEM results. The difference in the results can be attributed to
the different sampling and analytical systems used.
3-26
-------
TABLE 3-5. AVERAGE CEM DATA FOR NORTH ANDOVER TESTS
July 9 through 16, 1986
a,b
Ni
Run
1
2
3
4
5
6d
7
8
9
Date
7/08/86
7/09/86
7/10/86
7/11/86
7/12/86
7/13/86
7/14/86
7/15/86
7/16/86
02 (vol Z)
Plant Radian
NC 10.9
(8.4)
9.7 10.9
(8.4)
9.0 10.5
(7.8)
9.8 10.7
(8.5)
9.4 10.1
(8.1)
9.9 NR
(8.6)
9.9 11.5
(8.3)
9.8
(8.4)
10.0 10.5
(8.6)
CO (ppmv)
Plant Radian
NR 28.4
51 37.4
(44)
41 25.7
(36)
29 45.2
(25)
13 25.7
(11)
32 NR
(28)
57 35
(48)
53 36
(46)
NR 27
C02 (vol Z)
Plant Radian
NR 9.0
10.5 8.9
(9.1)
12.2 8.9
(10.6)
12.0 9.6
(10.5)
12.0 9.8
(10.4)
11.4 NR
(9.9)
10.3 8.5
(8.7)
10.5 8.6
(9.1)
NR 9.2
Plant
S02 (ppmv)
NR
21
(18)
37
(32)
46
(40)
43
(37)
48
(42)
54
(46)
31
(27)
NR
Plant Radian THC
Plant Opacity (ppm, as
NO (ppmv) (Percent) propane)
NR NR
174 0.10
(151)
186 0.12
(162)
191 0.12
(167)
213 0.13
(184)
186 0.55
(162)
203 0.31
(172)
219 0.14
(189)
NR 0.13
c
1.2
0.5
1.1
0.7
NC
NC
NC
NC
"Plant OEMs except for the 0 analyzer were located about 10 ft downstream of the ESP outlet sampling locations. The 0 analyzer was
located at the economizer outlet. The plant used in-situ infrared analyzers. Radian CEMs were located at the ESP outlet sampling
location. Radian did not measure SO , NO , or opacity. Radian used an extractive system.
b
Plant CEM measurements are presented on both dry basis and a vet basis. The results on a wet basis are reported in parentheses
below the dry basis values. The plant CEM results were originally recorded on a wet basis and converted to a dry basis using the
moisture content of the flue gas determined by EPA Method 4.
°THC data not recorded due to data logger malfunction during Run 1.
Data not reported by Radian because Run 6 was considered abnormal by Signal.
eValue considered invalid due to an instrument malfunction.
NR • not reported.
NC " sample not collected.
-------
4.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
The sampling and analytical procedures used at North Andover RESCO were
the most recent versions of the published methods. In some cases, the methods
were modified to incorporate the most recent developments which have been
accepted by the sampling community. In this section brief descriptions of
each sampling and analytical method summarized in Table 4-1 are provided. A
more detailed explanation of the sampling methods can be found in the test
reports. '
4.1 CDD/CDF SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
CDD/CDF sampling followed the December 1984 draft protocol for the
determination of chlorinated organic compounds in stack emissions. The
protocol was developed by the Environmental Standards Workshop sponsored by
the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) and EPA.
The method is based on EPA Reference Method 5. Basically, the ASME/EPA
protocol modifies the EPA Method 5 train to include a section to trap
chlorinated organics before the gas sample enters the impingers.
The CDD/CDF analysis for the flue gas and ash samples followed the
ASME/EPA analytical procedures to assay stack effluent samples and residual
combustion products for CDD and CDF dated December 1984. The protocol
includes organic solvent extraction, silica gel column gas chromatographic
separation, and high resolution gas chromatography and high resolution mass
spectrometry analysis.
4.2 TOCL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
The TOCL flue gas samples were collected using the same protocol as the
CDD/CDF samples except the protocol used hexane for sample recovery
purposes. The samples were analyzed by the Nulton method, which uses a short
4-1
-------
TABLE 4-1. SUMMARY OF SAMPLING METHODS AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
USED DURING THE NORTH ANDOVER RESCO TEST PROGRAM
Parameters
Sampling Method
Analytical Method
CDD/CDF
TOCL
Particulates
Metals
02, C02, CO, THC
Molecular weight
Moisture
Velocity
Temperature
ESP Ash and total
ash discharge
Environmental Standards
Workshop (Dec. 1984)
Environmental Standards
Workshop (Dec. 1984)
EPA Method 5
EPA Method 12 (alternate)
Extraction
EPA Method 3
EPA Method 4
EPA Method 2
Type K thermocouple
Composite grab sample
High resolution GC/MS
Nulton Method (short column
GC with Hall detector)
Gravimetric
Neutron Activation Analysis
Methods 3A, 10, and 25A (CEM)
Orsat apparatus
Gravimetric
CDD/CDF: Environmental
Standards Workshop Protocol
(Dec. 1984) Metals:
Neutron Activation Analysis
(ESP ash only)
4-2
-------
column gas chromatograph and a Hall detector. The method actually quantified
total organic halogens, but the halogens detected were assumed to be chlorine
(based on the feed). The levels are quantified by comparing the area response
of the sample chromatogram with that of the external standard, hexa-
chlorobenzene.
4.3 FLUE GAS PARTICULATE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
Particulate sampling and analysis was performed according to EPA
Method 5. The flue gas sample was withdrawn isokinetically and particulates
were collected on a glass fiber filter which was maintained at 120 +14°C (248
+25 F). After sampling was completed, the probe was rinsed with acetone. The
acetone washes and filters were dessicated. The particulate mass was
determined gravimetrically.
4.4 METALS SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
Metals sampling followed EPA Alternate Reference Method 12 where both
particulate matter and metals samples were collected using the same train.
The EPA Method 12 train has been demonstrated specifically for lead and
cadmium only. However for this test program, the method was used as a
screening analysis for additional metals.
The analytical method was modified by using NAA as the analysis method
rather than Atomic Absorption. The ESP ash was also analyzed by NAA. NAA can
be used to analyze for all the specific metals except lead and beryllium.
Also, the method does not differentiate between different valence states or
compounds of a metal such as Cr(+III) or Cr(+VI).
4.5 GEM SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
The GEM system was an extractive system where the flue gas was withdrawn
from the stack as a single point and then transferred through a heat-traced
teflon line to a gas conditioner which removed moisture by cooling the gas.
4-3
-------
The flue gas was split and sent to each type of analyzer. At North Andover
RESCO, nondispersive infrared analyzers were used to measure CO and CO- and a
paramagnetic analyzer was used to measure 0-. THC was measured by a flame
ionization detector on a propane basis. The analyzers were calibrated daily
with commercially prepared and certified zero and span gases.
4.6 ESP ASH AND TOTAL ASH DISCHARGE SAMPLING
Full-belt cuts of the ESP ash and total ash discharge were collected
every 30 minutes starting 45 minutes after the start of the flue gas sampling.
The delay allowed for the hold-up time in the ash handling systems. At the
end of testing, the samples were composited, riffled, coned and quartered.
For CDD/CDF analysis, about 10 grams of ash were analyzed. For metals
analysis by NAA, ESP ash samples of about 50 ml were analyzed.
4-4
-------
5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC)
In order to ensure and quantify the acceptability and reliability of the
data generated, a QA/QC program was included in the emissions test program at
North Andover RESCO. QA/QC procedures were included in all the phases of data
generation: equipment and sampling preparation, sampling operations, sample
recovery, sample analysis, and data reduction. This section summarizes the
procedures used during this test program. The detailed procedures and results
of the QA/QC program can be found in the emission test reports.
The estimated and achieved precision, accuracy, and completeness for this
test program are summarized in Table 5-1. Precision and accuracy for the
CDD/CDF analyses were all better than expected values.
5.1 EQUIPMENT AND SAMPLING PREPARATION
Sampling equipment was cleaned, checked, and calibrated before use in the
field. Table 5-2 summarizes the equipment that was calibrated for each for
each method. Calibration data were recorded on data sheets which are included
in the appendices of the emission test reports.
Following the cleaning procedure specified by each method, the sampling
train and recovery glassware was cleaned and capped prior to shipment to the
field. Once in the field, a lab proof blank was collected for each set of
sampling glassware. One set was analyzed. The purpose of the lab proof blank
is to quantify background contamination in the cleaned glassware. Sets of
sampling glassware were dedicated to each method to prevent cross-
contamination.
For CDD/CDF sampling additional preparation quality control steps
included cleaning and blanking the XAD resin and filters. The final rinses of
the solvents were analyzed for total chromatographable organics by gas
chromatography/flame ionization detection.
5-1
-------
TABLE 5-1. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED AND ACHIEVED
PRECISION, ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS
Precision (+ %)
Parameter Estimated Achieved
CDD
Flue gas 50 12&
Ash 50 27C
CDF
Flue gas 50 9a
Ash 50 15°
NAA Metals NA 10
CEMsd 10 NE
Volumetric 6 NE
flowrate
Fixed gases/ 10 NE
molecular weight
Temperature + 2°F NE
Accuracy (+ %)
Estimated Achieved
50 4b
50 NA
50 20b
50 NA
NA 5
10 NE
10 NE
20 NE
+ 5°F NE
Completeness
Estimated
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Achieved
100
100
100
100
100
99
100
99
100
reported is the largest percent difference calculated for any congener
from outlet-Run 5-BH duplicate analyses.
Based on the analysis of audit samples; a spiked XAD and a spiked water sample.
CValue reported is the largest percent difference calculated for any congener
from ESP ash-Run 5 duplicate analyses.
Precision of CEMs is expressed as the % coefficient of variation (CV)
determined from daily analyses of a QC standard, where
% CV - (standard deviation/mean) x 100
NE - not evaluated.
5-2
-------
TABLE 5-2. SUMMARY OF EQUIPMENT USED IN PERFORMING SAMPLING
01
I
Parameter
Volumetric Flue Gas
Flow Rate
Gas Phase Composition
Moisture
Molecular Weight
CDD/CDF
TOCL/Particulate
Method
EPA 1 & 2
EPA 4
EPA 3
ASME/EPA
Protocol
ASME/EPA
Protocol
(modified)
Calibrated Equipment Used to Measure Parameters
Type "S" Temperature
Pitot Measuring Dry Gas
Tube Manometer Device Orsat Nozzles Balances Meter
XXX
XXX XX
X
X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
Metals/Particulate
Alternate EPA
Method 12
-------
5.2 SAMPLING OPERATIONS
QA/QC procedures for sampling operations included leakchecks before and
after each port, following detailed checklists during sampling to ensure each
step was properly completed, and having qualified personnel performing the
sampling operations. Data were recorded on the data forms which are included
in the appendices of the emissions test reports.
5.3 SAMPLE RECOVERY
A recovery efficiency blank was collected for each method to quantify the
efficiency of the recovery procedure and any contamination that may have
occurred during recovery. Sample recovery procedures were carried out in a
controlled-atmosphere, enclosed trailer in order to minimize contamination.
Each sample bottle was assigned a unique alphanumeric identification code
which was recorded in a logbook and on the sample label. Chain-of-custody
sheets were filled out and packed with the samples as they were packed into
coolers for shipment.
5.4 SAMPLE ANALYSIS
The sample analyses were performed by laboratories familiar with the
analytical procedures. The accuracy of the analyses was evaluated by
submitting blind audit samples prepared by independent laboratories along with
the field samples. Precision was evaluated by performing duplicate analyses
of selected samples in each batch. For the CDD/CDF analyses, internal
standard and surrogate recoveries were determined in addition to the other
QA/QC procedures.
5.5 DATA REDUCTION
QA/QC procedures for data reduction included using computer programs to
generate data. This reduces the human calculational error. Data input files
5-4
-------
and equations were double checked by an independent person and tables of
results were spot checked by hand. In addition, any data points that appeared
to be outliers were double checked.
5-5
-------
6.0 REFERENCES
1. Jamgochian, C.L. , W.P. Gergen, and J.W. Mayhew (Radian Corporation)
Emission Test Report - PCDD/PCDF. Metals and Particulate Testing -
Signal Environmental Systems. Inc.. North Andover RESCO. North Andover.
Massachusetts - Volume I: Summary of Results. Prepared for United
States Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. April 1987. EPA Contract Number 68-02-4338.
2. Knisley, D.R., C.L. Jamgochian, A.J. Miles, W.P. Gergen, and D.J. Holder
(Radian Corporation) Final Emission Test Report - Dioxin/Furans and
Total Organic Chlorides Emissions Testing - North Andover Resource
Recovery Fecility. North Andover. Massachusetts. Prepared for Rust
Corporation, Birmingham, Alabama. November 18, 1986. DCN No.
86-233-015-08.
3. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. "Collecting a gross sample of coal"
ASTM D2234 (05.05), 1984.
4. Procedures for Estimating Risks Associated with Polychlorinated
Dibenzo-p-dioxins and Dibenzofurans (CDD and CDF). Prepared by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. April 1986.
5. Natrella, Mary Gibbons, Experimental Statistics. National Bureau of
Standards Handbook. 1963. pp. 17-2 to 17-3.
6. Holder, Donna J. (Radian Corporation) Performance and Systems Audit
Results of North Carolina State University Nuclear Services Laboratory.
Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) Conducted for the Marion County Test
Program Performed in September 1986. Prepared for United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
October 1987. EPA Contract Number 86-MIN-03B.
7. Reference 1.
8. Reference 2.
6-1
------- |